Jeremy

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 12:41 AM) Also, if you agree that the team couldn't be improved enough to compete in 2008, I can't see how you can view the Garland trade in a positive light. Kenny squandered away our biggest trading chip for another old player who doesn't figure to be part of the next time the White Sox raise any flags. He even said that he had offers with prospects on the table and that he turned them down. In a vacuum one year of Cabrera is a fine haul for one year of Garland, but you can't look at it so narrowly. Just because I look at it in context. Kenny has already decided to try and win now and has made a number of moves that have him locked in there pretty well. I can't blame him for failing to do a complete 180 at this point.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 11:17 PM) You wouldn't have made that trade....I like Quentin, but it's amazing the expectations people have for him right now. Defense is certainly a factor too but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Quentin outhit Crede next season. I don't think that's a product of high expectations for Quentin so much as it is the realization that Crede's a career .259/.305/.446 hitter. Quentin has struggled in the big leagues and his career MLB numers are more or less as good at .230/.316/.425.

Hahaha. I don't know who looks worse: Kenny if he made wild promises to Dye or Dye believing him. I think Kenny has done a pretty solid job this offseason. Anyone who thought he could take a thin minor league system and $10 or $20 million and improve the team by 15 or 20 wins was kidding themselves.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:25 PM) Im sorry but how many of our wondeful farm was part of the 2005 team?? This isn't a "keep our prospects" argument. Anyone who thinks there are no circumstances where we should trade prospects or no circumstances where we shouldn't trade prospects isn't being very reasonable. The issue is what's a good value and what's not. Hopefully we can all agree that if we could acquire M-Cab as a rent a player right before he was hitting the free agent market and were only willing to go as high as $10 million a season in attempts to resign him, we'd be stupid to trade away the entire farm system when we'd only end up with him for a few months. Whether we could have won with him in the next two seasons and whether we could've signed him to a worthwhile extension might be worth discussing. You shouldn't always trade your prospects no matter what the return is though, even if only because your assets would better be used in a different trade. Furthermore, you have to use the term "prospects" pretty loosely when talking about dealing your #3 starter and starting 3B for next season. QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:26 PM) The guy is a future HOF, who is only 24 years old, and would just abso. mash at the Cell, while our best prospect in DLS looks to have #1 stuff, but many scouts like him more as a bullpen arm, please give me Miggy over our whole system. Its too bad, if we couldve gotten him, we wouldve been able to retool in the draft with our high pick (and if we dropped the slot bonus bs) I'm not saying he wouldn't be worth trading for, just that it's not a slam dunk. When it's possible that we'd win 80 games with him the next two seasons and then lose him for nothing as a free agent I don't believe that we can give up anything and still have it be a great deal just because he's a good player. QUOTE(Elgin Slim @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:34 PM) What's bothering me is that in order to even speak to Oakland or Baltimore about Haren and Bedard you have to be willing to part with FOUR top prospects. And we couldn't even get one for Gar??? Granted Garland isn't on the same level with Haren, Santana, et al, but if those guys get you 4, then Garland should at least get you one. I don't know why people are still surprised by this: Kenny didn't want a prospect, he wanted a veteran because he's trying to win now.

We're heavily invested in winning now with Contreras, Buehrle, A.J., Dye, Paully, Cabrera, and Linebrink. Trading one player to get younger won't do a whole lot to change that and you can't really trade several of them right after you just signed/extended most of those guys.

I'm what you'd call a Kenny hater but I find it baffling that anyone would choose this moment to lose patience with him. He's made a number of questionable moves over the years IMO so I can't understand why the final straw would be failing to make a move that might not have even have been within his means. Completely gutting what's left of the farm system for a player who might cost $20+ million to resign in two years time doesn't seem like a slam dunk to me.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:55 PM) Is Rogers actually suggesting here that Carter has a higher ceiling that Quentin? I would argue the exact opposite, given the positions they play. As a 1st baseman, compared to a corner OF, I think the guy putting up the high OPS in the OF, with better defense, and actually about 75-100 points higher of OPS, along with more speed based on the stolen base numbers, is more valuable. 20 years old v. 25 years old; I stand by my argument though I still think it's a great deal for the Sox. It's harder to put limits on Carter's ceiling because he's shown such huge power potential at such a young age while as good of a player as Quentin projects to be based on his minor league performance, you have a better idea what you're going to get from him with 1700+ pro at bats under his belt with 1500 of those coming at AA or higher. The fact that Quentin projects as a good outfielder whereas Carter projects as a mediocre first basemen is certainly relevant but good hitting corner outfielders aren't much harder to come by than good hitting 1B so we're really only talking about Quentin being a game better than Carter defensively in a season. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) Mr. Rogers luuuuuuuuvs to stir the pot with Sox fans. He can't go an article about the Sox without making a comment about the *insert backhanded compliment* of sox fans. He doesn't throw s*** at the wall like Mariotti... he just puts the scent in the air enough to irritate Soxdom. As I've said earlier in this thread, I don't see it as an insult in any way. Trading a player with a slightly higher ceiling for one who's perhaps more of a sure thing and an exceptionally better fit for this team right now isn't a poor or mediocre move by any stretch of the imagination. Saying that Quentin doesn't have a higher ceiling than Carter despite the tremendous advantage of being ready to play every day in the majors right away is only saying that the Sox didn't land the steal of the decade with this deal, not that the trade wasn't a very good one. If Quentin had a higher ceiling than Carter that'd be like trading DLS for Bucholz, Hughes, or maybe even King Felix.

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 03:51 PM) Quentin's exit from Arizona was a given, with Eric Byrnes in left field, Chris Young in center and Justin Upton in right, and perhaps that drove down his market. I think Josh Byrnes is a phenomenal GM but paying Byrnes $30 million over three seasons and jettisoning Quentin makes little sense to me.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) Because he is more ML ready than Carter and they need ML players not 20 year old prospects. This deal sounds to good to be true. The Rays come to mind. Remember they do not use Crawford to lead off and could use some pop in their line-up, some bullpen help and young pitching.... We're talking about an extremely young 71 win team, I can't see winning now as that huge of a priority. QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:43 PM) It means that when Carlos Quentin peaks (let's say age 28) and when Chris Carter peaks (let's say age 27), Quentin will be better at his peak than Carter was at his peak. For the White Sox, they get the higher ceiling guy and may get his peak very soon, whereas they may have to wait 5-7 years for Carter to peak. Given positions of strength (OF for DBacks) and the fact that the DBacks have a glut of prospects that are in the Majors now, they may want to reload their next stream of prospects instead of wasting Quentin. I agree that the DBacks wanted to get someone younger because they didn't have the opportunity to integrate another young player into the lineup but I don't think that meant they were trading from that weak of a position. Teams are willing to trade prospects for more MLB ready talent all the time. It's unfathomable to me that they couldn't find someone who was willing to trade a prospect at least as good as Quentin in order to receive someone who could come in and contribute right away. QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) Most likely because of the difference in TOOLS. If the 30 year old vet is still in the minors, it means he sucks and cant cut it. The reason someone like Joe Borchard doesn't have a high ceiling is age not tools.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:30 PM) Pretty sure Frank Thomas or Albert Belle or any former MLB player who's twice my age has a higher ceiling than me simply because they are better than me. Age has nothing to do with ceiling. With all due respect, I think the value of Carter and Quentin as prospects are much closer than ceiling between you and Frank Thomas. I'd say that age is the number one factor when discussing ceiling. Players typically reach their prime around the age of 27 or 28. Hence Carter theoretically has 7 or 8 more years of improvement compared to two or three years for Quentin. Certainly tools are also a factor but age is critical. There's a reason you hear people talk about ceilings more with 19 year old pitchers dazzling in the minors than with 30 year old vets.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) Quentin has a higher ceiling than Carter, is able to step in right now and play a position where the Marlins are weak (OF), and the Marlins have at least a quality young guy at 1b already in Mike Jacobs. The positional aspect makes sense but since when do 25 year old prospects have higher ceilings than 20 year old prospects? That's hard to do unless the 25 year old is considering one of the better young players in the game. The fact that we were able to land Quentin for Carter would suggest that that's not the case and that the last couple seasons have hurt his value some in the eyes of MLB front offices. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of this deal, but if we traded a 20 year old for a 25 year old who can play right now and has a higher upside Kenny just pulled off the steal of the decade and I'm not willing to go quite that far.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) I like this deal but anyone else think it could be a prelude to a bigger deal...meaning Quentin, Fields and Danks for Cabrera or Bedard? I know why Quentin is more valuable than Carter for our organization: we're in win now mode and he can step in right away and fill a major hole. Why do people think that the Marlins clearly prefer Quentin over Carter?

Is there any way to get people to stop incessantly mentioning Cabrera? By all accounts he's barely on the table, i.e. the asking price is considered prohibitive, and the White Sox are never one of the teams discussed as a potential suitor.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) If this deal happens...we have to move Crede, no matter the return. I think it's been clear that Crede is gone ever since the team expressed it's intention not to play Fields in LF. The issue is how much trade value if any that he has. It's unlikely, but we could just end up non-tendering him.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) 2 years ago quentin couldn't be had, at least not for something other than a legit major league near all star calibur player, we bought low on a guy who is an on base machine....he tore up AAA as a 22 year old, which is actually relatively young for the league.....had success each of the following years as arizona tried to work him in...i have no explanation for his poor numbers last year but they are likely an abberation or as someone said caused by injury....this is getting instant production on the cheap and helps our OBP a ton...bat him second and cabrera first This sums up how I feel pretty well. I think that in light of this team's recent struggles and my frustrations with Kenny over the years I have some trepidation even when we make a move that I like. Really though, there's no reason not to be excited about this. We badly needed to fill the corner outfield spot and I can't think of a much better outcome.

It's hard to find anything to dislike about this deal/rumor. Quintin was formerly regarded as a better prospect than Carter is these days so unless you're down on him after his last couple seasons, it's a very good move. Dealing for someone young and inexpensive who appears to fill a major need (OBP) is pretty close to ideal.

The Winter Meetings have been quiet in recent years so I wouldn't be surprised if nothing happens. That said, Crede and Uribe don't seem to be in the team's plays so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one or both moved.

I suppose I'd never live there but I think Tucson is great.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) Nice in theory, but much work is left to be done to get into that position. Maybe Linebrink is a piece, but overall this team sucks. Our third-5th starters are Count, Floyd and Danks. While all have (some) potential, it's a very ugly rotation if these guys don't really step up. We also have no leadoff, no CF, questions at 3rd and 2nd and our proven good players are getting older by the day. Yeah, I don't think it's going to be successful but it is what it is.

People who are surprised and/or upset with these moves don't understand the direction the team is going. Like it or hate it we're trying to win now. That means established veterans and those types of players tend to be expensive whether your giving up talent (Garland) or cash ($19 million). Personally, I don't really like the direction we're headed because I don't think we have enough to work with but I've accepted it. The dies been cast for a while now.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 07:57 PM) http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....ra-a-barga.html Something else that's interesting, losing Garland after 2008 would have netted absolutely nothing in return as a Type B Free Agent (somehow, those 36 wins over two years don't count for much, do they?) So, along with the money coming our way, the compensation if we are unable to sign Cabrera long-term, the eventual playing destination of Mr. Juan Uribe, this is starting to make a little more sense from the Sox perspective. Unless Gonzalez thinks Kenny is being disingenuous when he said he acquired Cabrera with the intention of resigning him, I'm not sure why his classification as a type A free agent means much.

Rob Neyer: Keith Law (insider content only): Has a very similar but slightly less critical take than Neyer. Baseball America: I'm not doing back flips over this deal but my take on these articles is that because these writers haven't followed the Sox on a regular basis, they don't realize that if Cabrera plays defense just as well as Uribe and produces at the level of his own career averages offensively he'll be a considerable upgrade. I feel like they're glossing over how incredibly putrid (.240/.281/.415) Uribe has been at the plate the past three seasons.

I'll miss Jon. He was my favorite player for quite a few years and his major league debut is one of the most exciting moments I can remember as a fan. I wish him nothing but luck in all of his future endeavors.

I'm somewhat lukewarm about the deal but I don't understand why people would bash it the way they are and this is coming from one of the biggest Kenny Williams haters out there. Garland is an above average starter and Cabrera is an above average SS. We traded from a position where we have some strength and patched up arguably the biggest hole on the team. Seems like a net positive - though perhaps a very small one - to me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) Owens managed a .324 OBP in his first year, a partial year. And that OBP went up every month. A .330+ OBP is probable, and I'd in fact bet he'll be significantly higher. But even if not, he is basically already comparable to Pierre, but costs less than a tenth as much. Is Pierre 10 times better than Owens? On the list of people I'd like to see in OF for the Sox (out of the players available or being discussed here), Owens is not in the Top 5, or even the Top 10. But he is well above Juan Pierre. I'd take Owens over Pierre too, but if we sign Hunter, I don't want a player remotely resembling either of them patrolling a corner spot. Hunter's most valuable attribute is how much power he hits for in CF and you'd be negating that if you played a light hitting CF type next to him. Fields or someone else with power should be playing LF next to Hunter and Dye. If that creates a problem because we lack a leadoff hitter then we should sign someone who can lead off instead of Hunter.