Dick Allen

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:16 PM) If I'm not mistaken, Owens has major question marks defensively. He does. And there are some scouts who think Anderson has question marks defensively especially in CF. KW seems to think otherwise, at least in the case of Anderson.

I would be willing to bet if the Sox got Vazquez for Garland and they got no financial relief from Arizona, you would most likely be looking at Contreras' final year in a Sox uniform.

Garland and Young for Vazquez? The Sox would be willing to pay $16 million or more (considering what is left on Vazquez's deal and what Garland would get in arbitration) just to have a guy who has been mediocre at best the last year and a half signed 1 additional season, and give up one of their top prospects? Why don't they just give Garland a 2 year deal worth $20 million and keep Young? They would still come out $4 million ahead. This whole thing I thought was far-fetched, but Rosenthal has been pretty accurate for a while now, and his scenerio is scaring me.

QUOTE(R.J. @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:34 AM) Just a little quote from this page to put things into perspective. Maybe Gonzales is on it, but Rosenthal has been right on all year.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) What if it ends up being that the Sox trade Contreras instead of Garland? The DBacks have liked Contreras for a long time. I just don't see the logic trading someone for a player they hope become. Its like when the Bulls traded Elton Brand for Chandler. Brand got 20 pts 10 rebounds a night. They were hoping Chandler would be able to do that. Why trade a guy who you know can do it for someone you hope will be able to? On top of that, Vazquez makes more money. It is a ridiculous trade for either of those guys.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:50 AM) It maybe risky. However, the market for pitchers might be lower next offseason and we can possibly acquire a solid started for a decent price. IMO the market was inflated this year due to the lack of them in the actual market. With the increase amount of starters in the free agent market next year I can see the $ dollar coming back to Earth alittle bit. For an example i think we can get a Mulder type pitcher for about 9 mill/ year for 3 years. However, this year it would have to be 12 mill/year for 3 years. I'll take my chances on next years market. That Vazquez money is an aweful lot just for 2 years. The way I figure it is say Garland gets $8 million in arbitration. That is probably high but its still $3.5 million less than you would be paying Vasquez. Not trading for Vazquez then frees up a total of $16 million for 2007 considering Vazquez is scheduled to make $12.5 million in 2007. Unless they see something that would definitely make Vazquez a contender for the Cy Young, the trade would make no sense.

QUOTE(SouthSide2004 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:35 AM) Remember Esteban Loazia for Jose Contreras? It would be a very similar deal. Obviously Kenny thinks they can fix Javier, and his track record so far as a GM has been pretty impressive. The money still makes it a huge risk, IMO, but I trust Kenny's judgement. None other than Jeff Brantley couldn't believe that trade. The idiot couldn't get over how the Yankees fleeced the White Sox.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:16 AM) How much do you think a free agent starter will cost, and how many years will they want? Picking up Vazquez just delays that decision a year, and you would be on the hook for $12.5 million with him. If this speculation is true, they obviously see something with Vazquez they think they can change and make him the stud the Yankees thought they were getting in 2004. I just think he is way too pricey and risky with his performance the last season and a half.

If the Garland offer was 3/$24 million, I would have turned it down also if I were him.

If the White Sox are willing to pay Javier Vazquez $24 million for 2 years, there has to be better options out there for that kind of money.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 09:48 AM) http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=ari You can keep him at that outrageous price. What their stance does is basically makes it almost impossible to trade him. They are holding the cards. They wait until March, and either Vazquez recinds his trade request or he becomes a free agent who is going to have to take a pretty significant pay cut, and the D-Backs get him off the books and still have a total of $6 million coming from the Yankees. Maybe the opportunity to land a Garland or Contreras will make them change their minds about picking up at least some of the salary.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 09:39 AM) This has been covered numerous times in this thread. Vazquez is owed $8.5 million in 2006 and $9.5 million in 2007 because the Yankees are picking up $3 million per year of his contract. That's a total of $18 million over 2 seasons that Vazquez is owed, not $24 million. The Yankees are paying the Diamondbacks $3 million a year to cover it. The Diamondbacks are on record, according to Gammons, as saying they will not move that $3 million a year. In other words, you trade for Vazquez, you would be responsible for the entire contract. The D-Backs are keeping the $3 million a year the Yankees are sending them.

I hope its not a straight up deal. I still think it makes no sense unless Arizona is going to sweeten the pot with cash and prospects. Vazquez is owed $24 million the next 2 seasons.

TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay it. That means, if their position hasn't changed, the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 12:39 AM) Just an idea. I've always liked his arm. After what Coop was able to do with Contreras last year, I wouldn't doubt he could get Heredia back on track. However, I see that Heredia only pitched in 3 games last year. He must've had a serious injury. Forget about it if he isn't healthy. I'm really interested to see what Kenny has up his sleeve. Because I don't see jack out there right now. Isn't Heredia going to start the season with a steriod suspension? I really doubt he is even being considered.

QUOTE(illinilaw08 @ Dec 11, 2005 -> 02:05 PM) Any harm in giving Grossman a shot right now? As fragile as Rex appears to be, I don't think it would be too wise of Lovie to bring into a game that is already lost, where they are going to be teeing off on him. Start him next week.

I was hoping the Sox would shake up the bullpen a little bit. Relief pitchers have a tendency of following good years with bad years, plus you really don't know exactly what you have with Jenks. IIRC he still has a screw in his elbow, and that has to be a concern, especially with Hermanson's status probably being unknown until at least a couple weeks into spring training. I was hoping they kept Marte, but Mackowiak looks like a player the Sox really can use. Overall, I am looking for a drop in production by the bullpen this coming season. It will be interesting to see how the starters handle it. Garcia is a concern playing the World tournament. Buehrle I don't worry about. Garland should be alright although he wasn't as effective the last couple of months of the season. Contreras could be a stud, or he could fall back to the pattern he had with the Yankees and his first season with the Sox, thats why I think its important to keep Duque around. He's worth the $5 million if he makes Contreras better. BMac was very impressive his final few appearances, but he's still young, so it will be interesting to see how he comes out of the gate. Overall, there are a lot of questions, but they do have so many guys who can pitch, a lot , if not most of those questions are going to be answered in the postive as long as they remain healthy.

Bradley came up with the Expos. KW really wanted him when Cleveland acquired him. He seems to be a bad guy, but that's exactly what Everett appeared to be, and this guy has a ton more talent than Everett. It remains to be seen whether or not he can get his act together. If he can he can be a star. If he can't, he's going to cost managers and GMs their jobs.

The A's supposedly are the frontrunners to deal for David Wells. If they signed Frank Thomas, it could make for a pretty interesting scenerio considering Wells' comments the first time they were teammates.

He may want to be traded, but I really doubt Baltimore trades him. They are trying to attract stars, not rid themselves of them.

Tejada should sleep in the bed he makes. Baltimore offerred him the most money and years so he signed with them. He couldn't realistically think they were going to be better than NY or Boston, could he? Now that he has his guaranteed contract, he asked to be moved. Sorry Miquel, the Orioles made a 6 year committment to you, the least you could do is recipricate.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) scratch that idea, looks like he just now inked with the spankes. Thank God.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 10:19 AM) That's like saying assuming Rex Grossman stays healthy the Bears will have a great QB. Yeah, if guys like JD Drew, Izturis, their pitching staff, Gagne, Kent, Valetin, Werth all stay healthy, they'll have a good team...but there's absolutely no reason why we should expect those guys to all stay healthy, when either they're all getting up in age or they all have a long history of injury problems. Looks like Valentin is taking his .170 batting average to the Mets.

Why is everyone so gung ho about acquiring Myers? Look at the guy's career, he is below average. Sure he can get lefties out, but you could throw an American Legion right handed batter out to face him, and he would get lit up.

Another ironic fact.......Tommy John was traded for Dick Allen, a trade Roland Hemond has said saved the franchise.