witesoxfan

Ross and Brazoban for Kendall and Wilson? Is that with LA taking on all of Kendall's contract too? Cuz if not...ouch

I could see that. Some could look at the numbers and see that his numbers have been going up every year he's been in the majors. Some could also look at those same numbers and think maybe he has peaked and that we won't get much more then that, and that Beane would be doing what he's done so many times before.

Konerko, Byrnes, and Lee are all the same age, all born within 4 months of each other. You can throw the age argument out the door for either side. Byrnes hit .283 23 70 .800 or something very similar to that last year in Oakland. Network Associates, where the A's play their home games, played as a hitter's park last year, but it was not as big of a hitter's park as USCF was(on br.com's park factor scale, 100 is a neutral park, with anything less then that being a pitcher's park, and anything more then that being a hitter's park...NAC was a 101 for batting and pitching, while USCF was a 107-106 for batting-pitching). His numbers would likely see an increase. Why you are using career numbers is beyond me, because career numbers do not indicate how good a player necessarily is, especially when you are comparing the players previous numbers. I already noted how Byrnes numbers have seen an increase the past 3 years, so there is no set reason why they wouldn't continue to increase. Byrnes came up at an older age then both Konerko and Lee did, so that argument holds no precedence. Konerko hit like .239 12 47 .700 on the road, while he hit like .300 29 70 1.045 at home...it's quite obvious he has benefitted a ton from hitting at USCF. His numbers are very much inflated. Lee I know is very good...I've said so myself(in fact, I have said that Lee is the best player on the White Sox). That doesn't mean he can't be dealt in the right trade, and trading him as part of a package for Hudson would be the right trade as far as I'm concerned. Byrnes comes in and helps replace what Lee did for us, while others come in and help too. He will, in all likelyhood, not put up .300 30 100 .890, but he could easily put up .290 25 75 .850, or something very similar to that, with more speed on the base paths. I will say that Byrnes is worse defensively, as far as I can tell, then Lee is. I didn't see Byrnes play nearly enough to determine how he is defensively, so I'm going based on numbers, and the numbers say that Lee is better defensively(though I am NOT using errors and fielding percentage...I'm using range factor and zone rating, and I see that Lee's range factor is better(2.060 to 1.850) and his zone rating is better(.875 to .831). That's something we give up in getting a front of the rotation starter. And leadership is bulls***. I don't buy those kinds of things for a second. If you lose a leader of the clubhouse, someone else will step up, some how, some way. It could be a guy like Frank Thomas who leads with his bat and has an outstanding year, or it could be even a guy like Mark Buehrle or Aaron Rowand who stand up vocally. Jose Valentin was probably the biggest leader in the clubhouse, and most people are happy knowing he will be gone next year. Leading the clubhouse is part of the manager's job anyways, isn't it? Your comparison of Byrnes and Valentin is laughable. Jose hit less then .220 last year, while Byrnes hit over .280. Valentin can no longer steal bases with any efficiency, while Byrnes stole 17 bases for a team that does not run(he had almost half of the A's stolen bases). Your argument is just wrong. You can't trade just one of them...there will be better offers out there for Hudson then Carlos Lee and a couple prospects. And Beane is not stupid enough to trade Hudson for just Konerko and a couple prospects, unless one of the prospects KW gives up is named Sweeney, Anderson, or McCarthy, and if KW did that, he would most likely be castrated by someone on this board. What do you mean why would they trade for an OFer? They trade for Byrnes because they gotta try to fill Lee's shoes somehow, someway. The OF right now is Lee-Rowand-Everett from left to right...if you trade Lee as part of any deal without getting a replacement, you are looking at Timo/Borch/Escobar/Gload-Rowand-Everett...there is an outside chance that that would be the worst OF in the AL. And if you were referring to Jose Guillen, it's because he's a FA after the 2005 season and he's cheap and because it does clear a little bit of room for future needs. Trading Lee as part of a package for Hudson is huge. It's basically do you want Hudson for Lee, or do you want draft picks for Lee? I'll take Hudson, thanks much. Konerko and Borchard for Hudson would be laughed at and thrown in the garbage by Beane. Borchard is a nothing prospect, and Konerko is a $9 mill player who can't hit on the road, while Hudson is one of the best pitchers in the league. Get real...yeah, it'd be good if we could rape Beane like that, but we can't. And you're last hypothetical is laughable, and is not comparable to my trade. You are trading two starting pitchers who are under 30 for two OFers who are both over 35...that alone says no deal and is nothing like my deal. You also have to factor in that good starting pitching is much harder to find, and that I am actually getting a guy who can play the position of one of the guys I'm trading. If your trade were Buehrle and Garcia for Sheff and Vazquez, that's comparable...but that does nothing for either team. I know it was in joke and was to mock my trade...but you did so very poorly.

Jason Kendall is probably the 2nd or 3rd best hitting catcher in the game today. Consistently has an OBP in the .380-.400 neighborhood. If we could trade for him, that would be awesome, regardless of what happens to him after that.

I don't think it is so much the wanting to get rid of Lee and Konerko...I would not want to get rid of them unless a replacement of some type if brought in for one of them. I was basically just saying that I'd rather give up Lee and Konerko for RJ rather then Garland and Konerko. If I had it my way...neither package would be going to Arizona for RJ, unless we could bring in a solid replacement for Garland, because I do not want a black hole of a #5 spot in the rotation again.

Someone like Tampa or KC will pick him up. He'll be cheap and he's pitched decently before, so why not? Didn't Frank Thomas say that Rocky Biddle had like the best stuff on the pitching staff or some of the best stuff he'd ever seen before he got hurt? I think it was something like that.

Not to start a fight here, but just to make a point... Manny Ramirez at $20 mill per? Sure, he's been one of the best hitters period over the last 10 years...but he's essentially a DH. The only reason he's not DHing is because they have a player who is worse defensively then him at his respective position(or they have someone who is better then the DH defensively and the DH can't play in the OF because he's quite large), so they had to stick him somewhere. $20 mill for a DH is not spending money wisely at all.

In the postseason, I'd rather have the RJ-Garcia-Buehrle rotation...I thought I had mentioned that. If you wouldn't prefer that rotation, you'd be dumb(or you might prefer Hudson-Buehrle-Garcia...either is top notch). But you gotta get to the postseason first...that's probably the most important thing to remember. I could see a FA brought in here and winning us 15 games easily, and then us still having Konerko at 1B offensively too. I just do not like Konerko and Garland plus a prospect for RJ, unless we can somehow get another decent starter in here to replace Garland(and, while it is unlikely we'd get him cheaply, I'd take Loaiza if we could get him...odds are some team will give him some kind of a multi-year deal, and we will be SOL...but I'm just using that as an example). Put it this way...I'd rather trade Lee and Konerko for Johnson then Konerko and Garland for Johnson. With the first trade, we cut a little more payroll, we are still very strong pitching wise, and, quite frankly, it is a little easier to find good hitting then it is good pitching. Also, with that second trade, because of how much we are giving Arizona for just Johnson, I could see them throwing in a player or two too.

It's the winter meetings that's really fun. December is the funnest month of the year.

That's flawed logic. You are using 5 starters with RJ compared to the 4 of the one without RJ, but have Garland remain in the #5 hole, suggesting that we would sign a SP. If that were to be the case...you'd have to assume 10 wins out of that spot in the rotation...and perhaps knock it up to between 15 and 18 wins too. Once that is done, it is a lot clearer that RJ does not help the team nearly as much as one would like in the regular season. The postseason is an entirely different beast...a rotation of RJ-Garcia-Buehrle is top notch. I am for trading for RJ...but am not in favor of doing it if it involves Garland while not getting a good replacement for Garland. Trading Konerko and Garland, to me, restricts the team way too much financially and does not really help us win a whole lot more ball games.

Wasn't Tankersely one of San Diego's top prospects though?

Because when you ignore the poor numbers, you are doing yourself in. Billy Koch had good years in 2 of his previous 3 years coming into Chicago, while Keith Foulke hadn't had a bad year since 1998. Koch's peripherals were never good, while Foulke's were almost always good. Ignoring the poor numbers, KW made the trade anyways...and it bit him in the ass big time. You can't ignore bad numbers from a guy with a surgically repaired arm who is 36 years old. Beck is no longer good, and would not be a good pickup. The last time Diaz had a decent year was 01, so I see no reason why he would just magically come to Chicago and be awesome. There is no use for him at all. Davis and Burke can handle it, and by using just Davis and Burke, we are saving ourselves the $1 mill we would spend on Diaz. Konerko's not as good as you think. Sure he hit 40 homers...but roughly 75%(29 of 41) of them came at home. And his OPS of .700 on the road is not good either. I can tell you why it's worth it. Byrnes is on a 3 year inclination in several important categories(his average has gone from .245 to .263 to .283, his homers have gone from 3 to 12 to 20, his runs have gone from 24 to 64 to 91, his hits have gone from 23 to 109 to 161, his RBI have gone from 11 to 51 to 73, his SBs have gone from 3 to 10 to 17, his OBP has gone from .291 to .333 to .347, his SLG% has gone from .426 to .459 to .467, so therefore, his OPS has gone from .717 to .792 to .814), and while he wouldn't be nearly as good as Carlos(who could very well put up .310 35 110 .900 next year), he is much more cost effective. Compare Byrnes's likely .290 25 75 25 .800 to Lee's .310 35 110 10 .900 while also considering that Byrnes will make around $1 mill next year and Lee will make $8 mill. And so Byrnes is 29. He's still gotten better every year he's been in the majors, so I see no reason why that wouldn't continue, especially with the Sox. I didn't think he was some 25 year old young stud barely coming out of college. I also knew he was not like a 35 year old player who's bordering on being washed up. You'd say that both Konerko and Lee are still young, so why would you not say that Byrnes is still young? Why are you dwelling on his 2003 numbers? He hit .283 in 04 with a .347 OBP, and I've already made note of his 3 year inclination, so those numbers would likely improve too. You are not getting .263 at the top of the order, you are getting .283. What do you NOT understand about that? He's younger by 4 months. Congratulations. And he also costs $7 mill more then Byrnes does, and you will get similar production out of him too. You said that the Sox needed to replace the production they lost in trading Kong and Lee and only getting 1 hitter back, now you say that Koskie is really not a need. Quit contradicting yourself. Koskie replaces Crede, who would probably hit in the .250 25 .750 neighborhood, while Koskie will probably put up somewhere between a .260 and .280 average(considering that this year's .250 average was his lowest average ever in the major leagues) 25-30 homers, gold glove defense at 3B, and an OPS around .820 and .850, with the possibility of it being even better then that. Him staying healthy is the biggest concern I would have, because he has proven to be a little injury prone over the last few years. If he gets a little banged up, Harris will start a few more games then usual with Uribe slipping over to 3B. The move is that simple. You don't know he wouldn't mix well. It's been used ad nauseam, but we do have a big group of hispanic players in the clubhouse, and there is an outside chance that Guillen would fit well here. There's also the chance that Ozzie would embrace him and try to make him fit in with the group. Stranger things have happened before. And even if he is a s***head...he's still gonna hit probably .300 30 110 .900. That's awesome for $4 mill or so. And then we let him go at the end of the year. Simple as that. Why would they not trade Vazquez for probably the best starter on the market? If they had the opportunity to trade Contreras and others to Arizona for RJ, they would have done it in a heartbeat. They've invested a ton in Vazquez, yeah, but they can also trade him for RJ, which is another huge investment. They'd do that in a second. That type of thing means very little to the Yankees. They'll take Posada and Vazquez(and a bunch of money) over Konerko and a prospect any day of the week. Period. Everett is still a .270 20 80 .775 guy, while Uribe is a .280 25 70 .800 guy. If anything, Uribe is a little better, but being equal hitters is good enough for me. Gload has never had a full season. Uribe has. Uribe's the better hitter until proven otherwise, regardless of whether he was a fluke or not(and he wasn't BTW...it was just the same old story of a young hitter starting to mature and grow more consistent with more playing time in the MLB). You are probably right. I'd agree. It definately helps to pitch with leads...but saying your pitching staff would be better then mine because the offense is better(which it really is not) is wrong. A pitching staff will be as good as it is regardless of what the offense does. Period.

You misread his stats. 2004 was terrible. He missed all of 2002. And his ERA in 1999 was 5.93...he pitched with mainly the Cubs, but also the Sawks. He's not even worthy of being a NRI...let someone else take him. We have enough younger arms that can do mopup work for us next year. Ozzie likes having 3 guys on the roster who can play catcher. Not necessarily 3 catchers. Having 3 catchers like that would be a huge mistake. There's no need for it. In an absolute emergency, someone like Crede or Uribe could play catcher for a little bit. Also...Einar really adds nothing. I want no piece of Einar Diaz. I'm trading our best player and a damn solid 1Bman, who make a combined $16.5 mill, for a top 3 starting pitcher and a cheap, young, good player in Eric Byrnes who has gotten better in each of the last 3 seasons, meaning there is nothing stopping him really from hitting .290 30 100 .850 25 except himself. I did mention above that the prospects could be taken out...but that if the A's would ask for them, I would give them. You don't let a couple potential could be's ruin the trade. And do I need to go over the Marlins example again? Them taking on $30 mill over 3 years? $10 mill(which is what it is...not $6 mill, which would be too beneficial) over 3 years is very little. Uh, hello? Part of the offseason plan would be to bring in Koskie or Guillen with some of the money left over to help make the offense a little stronger. That's not even a reason. That's your opinion. That paragraph completely contradicts itself. First of all, the Yankees would trade Vazquez as part of a package for Johnson if they could. Getting to my main point...you mention how Zona wouldn't take Posada because they are going younger, yet note how they would take Konerko because he fills a hole. If they are going younger, are they going to worry about the holes in their lineup? Posada and Vazquez plus their contracts for RJ and his entire contract is a much better offer then Konerko plus a prospect for RJ...Arizona gets more for him, and is still saving money too. It will take more then Konerko and a prospect to get RJ. Period. Byrnes = Vizquel Vizquel Thomas = Thomas Koskie > Everett Rowand Everett = Uribe Uribe > Gload Gload > Crede Davis = Diaz I think I'm judging this fairly...if not, someone say something...but as far as I can tell, from the looks of it...my lineup appears a little better the yours(and one could argue that Davis is better then Diaz too, making the bottom of my lineup even stronger then yours) Even seeing that...you can't judge rotations by the offense, which is exactly what you do. "My rotation doesnt take away from our lineup as much as your would" So how does how the offense goes effect how we pitch? Another thing...I'm not sure you understand the money yet. We take on $4 mill in 05, $2 mill in 06, and $4 mill in 07...and even after doing that, we are still $5 mill up even after including the $4 mill on Kendall's contract for this year. No we couldn't. You take Beane to be the fool that he isn't. Beane has no use for Konerko at all...he can get roughly the same production at a fraction of the cost in Durazo. Why would he want a guy that hit .240 on the road with an OPS of .700? It is quite obvious Konerko's numbers are USCF inflated.

LOL...it's frustrating, but it hasnt resorted to name calling anyways. Considering Soxtalk's general consensus on the trade, I'm surprised I haven't been called worse names then I already have on this thread. It'll die in due time Regarding the actual numbers...Hudson would be making around $11-12 mill in 06, Garcia $10, Buehrle about $6, Contreras like $8, and Garland would either have to be gone, or he'd have to be good(probably would make around $4-5 mill). Quite honestly, I do not see both Contreras and Garland on the team in 06...it'll be one or the other. Financially...I hope it's Garland. There's always a possibility that he is so bad that we just can't have him there too, or there's the possibility that Contreras busts out and becomes a stud starter. Adding that up real quick, I get anywhere from $31 mill to $36 mill. That's a lot of money...like half the team's payroll...committed to the rotation. Add in the $2 mill we have kicked in for 06...and it's anywhere from $33 to $38 mill. And then you factor in $10 mill that Frank will make, and we will have to have a patchwork offense for the next couple years the way Oakland has done it, and we'll have to hope the young and cheap guys can produce(guys like Gload, Byrnes, Rowand, Uribe, Crede, Davis, Burke, Harris, Fields when he's ready, Anderson when he comes up, Sweeney too...they have to produce and they can't be god awful like Borchard has been). That's gotta be how you do it, period. It's a lot of money...I will not deny that. What I will say though is that this is, technically, not getting away from the hit or miss style of game we were trying to get away from...not at all. If anything, it's doing the exact same thing...if just one of those guys does down, we are f***ed.

I say we get him for the sole fact that he promotes good hygeine. I mean, there is never a wrong time to brush your teeth.

I wasn't sure Freddy would, but he did. Stranger stuff has happened That would be part of the deal. If Hudson would not sign an extension, there is no deal. I could maybe see a 3-year, $39 mill deal or something in that general area with like a $15 mill option for the 4th year.

Explains everything perfectly. I make several posts defending my trade and every point of the trade, and why all 3 teams would make the deal, and how much it actually does benefit the White Sox... ...and you're explanation as to why it's dumb is because it makes no sense. Wow. Simply wow. I cannot confirm this to be true, but I have read where if RJ is traded his deferred money becomes upfront money. Meaning if we trade for him, he will make $16.5 mill next year, not $10 mill. Another thing...are you saying you will trade like an A-level prospect for him, a grade A prospect for him, or a(meaning one) prospect for him along with Konerko? Regardless...none of those would get the trade done. NY can easily come over the top of that with Posada and Vazquez while taking on most of those two's contracts and taking on all of RJ's. The DBacks essentially have to trade RJ...but he's still a top 3 pitcher in the majors, and will still cost a ton to trade for, even considering he's 41. Signing Diaz upgrades absolutely nothing. He hit .220 last year, had an OPS of under .600 last year, and hasn't had an OBP of over .300 since 2001, when his OBP was .328. Someone else can sign Einar. Williamson is damaged goods and would be a risky pickup. I want to say that he is in line to have some type of surgery, but I can't be certain on that. If he were healthy, he would definately be good, but I'm just not sure how healthy he is. Rod Beck had an ERA of 6.38 last year, a K/BB of 1.7, had a K/9 of 5.6, had a BB/9 of 3.3, and a WHIP of 1.50 last year...all that in less then half a season in San Diego. He was cut because he was pitching so s***ty. Can he still pitch - no. I think I answered your question. I want no part of Rod Beck, and I don't think anyone else does either. Not sure if your lineup is any better then either of mine, quite honestly. Why would we have Davis and Burke on the bench with Diaz starting? Diaz/Davis is a waste of space if the other is on the team. Again, not sure how much better this rotation is then mine, and mine is more cost effective and will be around longer then yours too. I'm just going to ignore Beck's name next to that setup man role. Also...I still don't see how this is any better then mine either. In fact, I'd say it's worse. I do think I'd rather have Percival over Williamson. I think basically, you did essentially what I did, only instead, it costs us more money and is probably done after this year, because I'm not sure how much longer Unit can keep going and I'm not sure if we would be able to resign Unit.

Because he doesn't want to be an asshole and hijack the thread. He was doing it jokingly.

There is a reason I proposed this...and it was to see how good/bad it really was. I've done exactly that, and I do think I have figured out that we are giving up too much. The 3 prospects is probably too much...probably could knock that down to 1 prospect in all likelyhood, or perhaps even no prospects. The main reason I will take on $4 mil of Kendall's contract in this situation is due to the fact that we still come out on top money wise. If we trade PK and Caballo essentially straight up for Hudson and Byrnes(which is basically what the trade is from our standpoint), we come out $9 mill richer. When you include Kendall into the mix, with Pittsburgh taking on $12 mill, Oakland has to take on about $6 mill this year, which is, quite frankly, too much for them to take on. We take on $4 of that $6 mill for this year, and Kendall is down to $2 mill for them, making him much, much more attractive to Beane and company(one of the best catchers in the league for $2 mill? Not sure how he would be able to refuse). He then makes $5 mill the next two years in Oakland, so Oakland is paying him $12 mill over 3 years...that's next to nothing. I honestly do feel that this move would push us very close to over the top. I look at Byrnes, and realize that he would be a pretty good leadoff hitter for us, and he could provide 25-30 homers too. I then look at Tim Hudson, who is one of the best pitchers in the league, and would make our rotation a top 3 rotation in the majors(there would not be many teams who would have a better 1-2-3 then Hudson, Buehrle, Garcia, and Contreras is a pretty damn good #4 too, with Garland being a very solid #5), and realize that all we really have to do is worry about finding 1 more bat, and a good reliever, and we have a pretty good shot at making some noise. Also, as I mentioned before...offense is a lot easier to upgrade at the trading deadline then pitching is, and it costs much less. There's always a possibility that a guy like Shea Hillenbrand or even Edgardo Alfonso becomes available and will come relatively cheaply, and would provide a good bat in the lower part of the order. So maybe not Lee, Kong, 3 prospects, and $10 mill..maybe just Lee, Kong, and $10 mill for Hudson and Byrnes. However, if Oakland says you have to give a prospect or two to get the deal done, I would do it in a heartbeat.

We all can See thread: Very crazy trade idea

If he stayed healthy, he'd be a 40 homer, 1.000 OPS guy for us. That's still a pretty big if, even with him playing a full season last year.

Which is exactly why he hit RHP at a .280 clip last year with a .700 OPS. :rolly

He is, I agree with that. He's not worth $11 mill a year though. Maybe $7 or $8, but not $11. If we could get Pittsburgh to take on enough to make Konerko for Kendall basically a wash, I do it in a second.

That's true I think I should have said Willie starts at 2B against RHP and RHP only. We'd then have to find someone that could play 2B or 3B that could hit LHP too.

$34 mill over 3 years is a ton of money for a guy who just gets a lot of base hits