Vance Law

The Red Sox are lame and they suck and I want them to lose and they suck. Youkilis needs a wider goatee.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 11:59 PM) Oh yeah I don't disagree with that at all. But I mean those 2 other positions wite talked about 2B and CF, we're not exactly loaded there either. It's why this should only be a start, we need more signings like this. See whitesoxfan comment. If you can play shortstop, you can probably play any position. At age 16, the best player, the most athletic, etc is probably going to be at shortstop. If you've got 2 guys who are 16 and can play in the middle infield, the better of the two is going to have been put at shortstop. Now with these 3 signings, the players all being on the same farm team, I would assume they'll see time at 2B and CF as well.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) My guess is a deal similar to what Mark Mulder got this past winter -- two year deal where he really cashes in in the second year (so long as his arm progresses as the team expects/wants). IIRC, Garcia isn't supposed to come back til (best case scenario) July 2008, so I'd say something like $4-5 million the first year, $8-11 the second year. At that price, I wouldn't mind the Sox making that gamble. Garcia and Guillen are tight, who knows.

Go Indians. Bo$ton Yank Sox can go suck it.

Say, could we trade Garland for hot prospects and sign Freddy to a 1-year, incentive-laden deal? I didn't think so. What is Garcia likely to get in free agency?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) Look, you're being silly. Everyone has bad postseasons, whether it's in "HIGH-PRESSURE!" environments or not, from Babe Ruth (the greatest to ever play the game) to Barry Bonds to Randy Johnson. That Rodriguez has had a few rough postseasons against some of the best pitchers in baseball doesn't mean anything at all and shouldn't determine his next contract and won't. I'll bet a few years ago, if someone had mentioned bringing in Peyton Manning, you'd have said, "No! What has he ever done in the playoffs?!" It's like you expect everyone to be Paul Molitor or Geoff Blum. This is perhaps the GP post I most agree with.

Who would replace Hahn if he left? Could we get some stathead genius?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Look, A-Rod was the difference between a Yankees team in the playoffs and a Yankees team that didn't make the playoffs. Wasn't Posada also the difference between playoffs and not (look at yer average catcher vs. Jorge), wasn't Wang also, by himself the difference between playoffs and not.

QUOTE(BigEdWalsh @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 12:40 AM) I was interested to know where Mochis is so I googled it. I believe it is just south of the Copper Canyons area which is supposed to be amazing to see, and I hope to go there at some point...........to see Heath Phillips pitch.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) A BAD starting pitcher who I would want NO part of. He's had an ERA+ above 88 twice in his 5 year career all of which has been spent in the terrible NL. He's 30, has a decent arm but can't keep the ball on the ground and gives up a s*** LOAD of homeruns. In other words, not the sort of guy the Sox should be receiving in exchange for their most promising prospect. That would be an awful trade. Yes I see now. This trade idea presumes that we'd need to give more than Crede, with his just one year left, and back ???, to get Hall. But I assume we're not that desperate to give away potentially our best minor league arm.

QUOTE(That Baseball Prospectus Article @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 06:04 PM) And the good news is that there are any number of permutations that would allow the Brewers to improve their defense without really losing any ground at the plate. For example: * Move Braun to LF, sign Mike Lowell at 3B, sit on Matt LaPorta for a year * Move Bill Hall to 3B, Braun to RF, and Corey Hart to CF; LaPorta gets the opportunity to make the big league club out of spring training. * Trade Bill Hall and Claudio Vargas for Joe Crede and Faustino de los Santos, move Hart to CF, Braun to RF. Who is Vargas? What do people who know who he is think of this? *edited to add- I assumed he was some minor leaguer, but instead it looks like he's a scrub. am I right?

Garland career ERA+ (adj for park) 106 Silva career ERA+ (adj for park) 102 Both had very good 2005 with Garland much better in 06 and a little better in 07.

Flacido Polanco but young, is perhaps a good comparison.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) Ive been frequenting www.angelswin.com And its an interesting view into how f-ed up fans reactions are to their teams. Angels fans complain about Figgins, and Willits etc about how they have too many "pop-gun" players and they need more homerun power and less speedy contact types of guys. This is virtually the opposite of the opinion of people on this site. its quite fascinating. Everybody complains about everything, but nobody complains more than baseball fans about their own team. I find it endlessly annoying.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) Who knows if it is true or not, but the Yanks have said if ARod opts out, they are done talking to him. That is what I heard too, but yeah, who knows. If he opts out, the Yanks would have to basically double his yearly salary because they wouldn't be getting all those bucks from Texas. Who was the last player to get a deal for $20mil/year? Manny? Who the hell is going to pay one guy $30 mil for a ton of years? I just can't see it happening once you take the Yankees out of it. Aramis R. signed for 5 years/ $75 mil. Borass wants twice the yearly salary and twice the years while those 2 guys had basically the same stats in 2006 (Aramis better slg, Rod better OBP steals). Rodr had MVP years in 07 and 05, Aramis clearly had the better year in 04. To earn a $300 mil contract it would seem ALROD should putting up an OPS around 1.700 on a yearly basis. If they lose Rodriguez, the Yanks could sign Lowell to play third, Hunter in center for less than $30 mil and a lot less than 10 years.

QUOTE(knightni @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) Ouch. That's some bad D there. Oh you betcha. But probably not too much worse than Fields would be out there until he figures it out.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) I still disagree. Giving up Rowand and Gio to get a player that cost more money and gives you the same production as a player you already have is a bad move. This is called hindsight. You and I and lots of people would be great GMs if we could see what is going to happen in the future. Thomas was a 400 pound man who was 38 and had just missed 2 seasons with foot and ankle problems, and nobody except a guy looking back on it after it happened, could reasonably assume Thomas could stay uninjured.

Actually, I just noted that Mike Lowell would be signed by the Yankees the instant AROD opts out.

"If A-Rod opts out, could we offer you Yanks something in a Joe Crede?"

syntax error

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) Who exactly wants to get rid of Kotchman? FWIW, the trio of Shields, Figgins and Kotchman out-VORP'ed Konerko and Garland by a rather large margin (77.2 to 52). Yes, but you are comparing 3 players to 2 players. At very least you would need to include the VORP of the current Sox player being replaced by the extra player in the deal. Shields, Figgins, and Kotchman also out VORPed Manny Ramirez and Dustin Pedroia (70.5), but I doubt Boston is making that trade. You are also using just one year of data, and one that is TREMENDOUSLY skewed by Figgins having a career year with the bat (his 36.2 VORP this year outpaced his 14.2 from 2006) and Konerko having a down year (his 25.4 VORP is way down from his past 3 years of 38, 46, 47.7). QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) Who exactly wants to get rid of Kotchman? Even if you don't believe in VORP, those numbers show who's getting the better end of the deal, I disagree.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) Yes, that would give the Sox tons of financial flexibility but my question is what do they use it on. They would have there entire lineup set and about 20M freed up. Would they spend that money on pitching, as it is obvious they would need to add at least one starter to the rotation (a rotation with Vaz/Buehrle and 3 unknowns would be awfully tough to win with). What? Why won't anybody do the math. It's just counting. If you deal Contreras' $10 mil salary for Furcal's $13 mil salary, you haven't gained "tons of financial flexibility."

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) Plus the Sox couldn't have signed him for $500,00. They would have had to pick up his option which was substantial -- at least much as they paid Thome. I wish that Thomas had somehow stayed with the Sox, but it's simply wrong to say they could have kept Thomas for less money. Actually, I think they could have had Frank for less money. Once they paid his buyout ($3 mil?), they could have signed him as a free agent just like anybody else. I, however, am definitely in the camp that says getting Thome was a good move. You couldn't count on Thomas being healthy. Thome was an immediate huge upgrade for a mediocre offense with a bad OBP. I do recall saying at the time of the Oakland signing, "thank god Minnesota is too stupid to make the move that Beane did."

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 10:19 PM) 1. Because the Sox need to create payroll flexibility. 2. The Sox have no farm system and the Sox can get 2-3 prospects for him to fill holes. 3. Buehrle has a no trade clause and Vazquez a ltd. no trade making Garland the best trade chip the Sox can offer. Bob 4. Garland is the one who is a free agent after 2008. 5. Contreras' poor season makes it unlikelier that any team will pay his salary and give us anything decent.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 06:58 PM) Your source wasn't involved in the trade discussions, and is directly refuted by common sense and an Arizona official. Not positive who you mean by "[my] source." If you are referring to Rogers, he isn't 'mine.' He's the guy whose article is referenced in the thread. I'm not saying I buy or agree with what he says. That's why I used the conditional, 'if'. If one believes Rogers, then................ If you are saying an Arizona official has said whatever about the trade, I have not seen it, and would like to. If one assumes what you are saying is true, that Arizona always wanted Young, not Anderson, then we are right where we were before this article, that the deal would not have gotten have gotten done offering them Anderson. And folks can decide for themselves whether or not they like the trade, coming off a World Series season made possible by the best pitching in the league, fortifying that pitching even further with another above average-to-excellent starter with no injury history and who eats 200+ innings. Sacrificing some of the future in an attempt to win again now with a World Series team made even better on paper with the additions of Thome and Vazquez. That "now" being: '06- a subpar year for Vazquez though he pitched 200 innings vs. Young playing in the minors '07- a 3.74 ERA 200 innings/200strikeouts vs. a CF with a .295 OBP and a .763 OPS