witesoxfan

QUOTE(rockren @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) I'm still not following here. Silva is going to command a 5 yr deal in FA. My guess is a deal around 5 yr/50mil (See Ted Lilly and Gil Meche) Would you rather commit 50 mil to Silva or 12mil to Garland? Even if it costs you a few prospects? Why not test a guy out for a year and see if he's right for your organization. If Garland were to go to the NL and have a sub 4 ERA over 200 innings and 15 wins...a GM could better justify giving a guy 50 million after he's already shown he can do it for your club. If he goes to the NL, puts up 200 innings, sub 4 ERA, and 15 wins, he's making $75-90 mill over 5-6 years. Just think about it; if Gil Meche and Ted Lilly got $10+ mill each per year for 4.48 ERA and a 4.31 ERA respectively, and Jason Marquis gets $7 mill for putting up an ERA over 6 in the NL, then what do you think they get if they put up much better numbers than that? Look at the Phillies; even with a division crown, do you think they'd like Gio and Floyd back? They were able to give up 2 prospects (if you even want to call Floyd a prospect anymore) and got 1 win out of Freddy Garcia. Would it have been preferable to sign a free agent, such as Lilly or Meche and live with the rotten contract, or would you rather get 1 win out of Garcia, pay him $10 mill, and see him leave for nothing? You are going to get value with Carlos Silva; he's relatively underrated by the baseball community because he gives up a thousand hits and doesn't strike people out. Garland, on the other hand, is overrated, atleast by this some it seems, because he's not vastly superior to Carlos Silva in any way, shape, or form.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) 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. And you still have to give up players and then a contract extension for Garland, whereas you only have to give up a contract for Silva.

Kenny probably told Beckett that he also enjoyed Danielle Peck.

That little bit Kevin Millar did at the end of the pre-game show was a joke. "Let's go Sox!"...? WTF is that s***? You are supposed to provide a neutral broadcast, and that is about the furthest away from neutral as you can get. If anything, atleast let someone from Cleveland do a bit about the Indians too.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) That's why I've always liked you. You're cool, unlike these other cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sacks of monkey s***. you crazy

QUOTE(rockren @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) You certainly could say it's a deceiving statistic,but meaningless? Yeah...tell that to the Yankees when they signed Pavano years ago to a monster FA deal. That had nothing to do with his 3.00 ERA or 1.17 WHIP; yep, wins are the only reason. So Silva can't dial it up if he wants to? I've seen Silva hit 93-94 before, but he usually stays at 88-91. As far as I can tell, that's dialing it up. They'd rather sign the long term deal with Silva, unless they are getting Garland at a ridiculously cheap price. Right now, every team has money to spend, and thus, the value of prospects is up extraordinarily. No, that's you wearing black and white shades; there is no clear cut better pitcher, but if I had to choose someone, it would probably be Silva. He has one year where he got absolutely destroyed, but other than that, his ERA has been at 4.21 or below in 3 of the past 4. That says more to me than Garland having 1 good year making 2 mediocre and 1 solid year look pretty good.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) No, it doesn't. Rivera > Lee. It's apples to oranges, but Rivera is more important to a ballclub than Carlos Lee. I'll simply disagree. A guy who plays 162 games for the entire game has more value to me than a guy who averages just over one inning at a time, even if he is the GOAT at doing his job. How hard is it to find a closer that can put up a 1.10 WHIP, a 3.00 ERA, and a 9 K/9? There were like 15 that did that this year, and there are many other relievers throughout the league who are capable of such a line. How hard is it to find a LFer that can put up a .882 OPS almost year in and year out? Considering he was 30th in OPS in the majors, and 5th in OPS among MLB LFers, I'd say quite a bit harder.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 08:10 PM) Who's more valuable? I don't know for sure. But Rivera is definitely better at his job than Lee at his. Lee is more valuable. Rivera played in 5% of every inning the Yankees had, while Lee played in 93% of the Astros. If you are going to bring up the "better at the job" topic, Daryle Ward was better at his job than Carlos Lee; I do not see him as more valuable. Does the comparison between #1 pinch hitter and best bat off the bench not compare to the closer role?

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) I suppose you mean 1996. Wouldn't mind resurrecting some of that offense next season. Yeah, for some reason I was saying 98. Since 6 and 8 look so much alike.

someone want to let me know why Baltimore would even consider moving Bedard?

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) Just wondering, but when was the last time the Sox had two .400 OBPs in the same season? Belle and Thomas was what I would have thought, but even they didn't do it. 1998 - Tony Phillips and Frank Thomas. They almost had 4 actually, as Baines put up .399 in 572 PAs and Dave Martinez put up .393 in 498 PAs.

QUOTE(Fantl916 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 06:33 PM) If you give me Adam Jones in a package for Garland I would do a cartwheel. However, I agree that the guy KW will most likely pursue would be Morrow, which isn't likely either. That said, Bill Bavasi isnt the best GM out there, and loves to trade for solid vets. Maybe we can package Garland with other parts they can use and get some young talent including a couple out of the Clement, Baletein, Jones, Morrow group. They've said Adam Jones is going nowhere.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 03:54 PM) Garland for Tejada strait up. The money is the same, the only difference is garland is a fa after 08 and tejada is under contract till 2010. That, and Peter Angelos being crazy about trading studs, is why the Sox would probably have to include Gio or DLS in that deal too.

QUOTE(rockren @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Silva over Garland? Garland has won a career 92 games and Silva has won 55. They're the same age and they're styles are pretty similar if you ask me. What alarms me about Silva is that hitters have hit .300 against him for his career. I understand that Silva pitching on turf while being a ground pitcher has killed him in that area...I still like Garland a lot more. Add in the fact that the Cell/at times horrible Sox Defense through the years...and I'd say the playing fields have been equal for the pitchers. They're the same age and Garland is a much much more proven commodity. I've seen both in person multiple times and there is no comparison. I'd take Garland in a walk. Why on earth would you use wins? Garland has started for the equivalent of 7 years in the majors, whereas Silva has started for 4; that's probably the most misleading and useless stat you could throw out. If you are going to use wins - which is not a good way to determine how good a pitcher is - atleast use average wins per year. Garland's at 13.14, Silva at 13.75, which is essentially no difference. And you can use Silva's BAA against him, but they have the same career WHIP for a reason, and that's because Silva has absolutely fantastic control. He generally walks around 35 guys a year, but actually walked just 9 guys in 2005; on the contrary, Garland generally walks around 50-55 a year, but walked as many as 76 as recently as 2004, and walked 57 this year; that's about a 22 base runner difference. I also don't buy the more proven commodity bit; Silva's been a starter for 4 years, put up an ERA of 4.42 during that stretch of 773.2 innings, and had an ERA of 4.21 or lower in 3 of the 4 years; during the last 4 years, Garland has put up 857.2 innings of 4.28 baseball, which is obviously better, but only once had an ERA of below the 4.21 that Silva put up 3 times (though he did put up 4.23 this year). If anything, they are essentially the same pitcher statistically, but Garland costs players AND money to retain him, whereas Silva costs just money. One could argue that the short-term commitment could be a good thing, especially if Garland got hurt, but I really don't look at it that way. I just find it ridiculous how overrated Garland is and underrated Silva is. Thus, because Silva = Garland, and Silva doesn't cost as much, Silva > Garland

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) I feel a Chuck Norris / John Schuerholz reference on its way... Speaking of which, have you ever seen Chuck Norris and John Schuerholz in the same room? I think NOT

Johan Santana > Carlos Silva > Jon Garland perhaps Silva is the same pitcher as Garland statistically, but you give up no players for him, and it just costs money; Garland costs players and money.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 10:47 AM) Too bad Lee Evans hasnt done s*** this year. Why is that exactly? Its killing my fantasy team. He's not a true #1 receiver - probably suited best with a good compliment - and he's getting double teamed. The offense is also going through Lynch right now, so there's not as much passing going on. I'd say just wait it out though...that's what I'm trying to do...and hope since the Bills have started spreading it around a bit better - Edwards hit like 7 different receivers last game - that Evans opens up more often.

From what I recall about Losman - I watched as much Bills as anybody on here last year, or perhaps even less (Balta may be able to help me out)... -doesn't manage a game well -not mobile in the least -cannon arm -doesn't check down well, seen easily by the fact that almost half of his yards went to Lee Evans last year (which also speaks about the Bills talent at wideout too) -other than to an explosive receiver (read: Evans) or on a deep route to the first check down, afraid to take a chance -very accurate passer -very afraid to make a mistake ...and the Bills were in a very conservative offense last year. At the very best, Losman could be Kyle Boller, but I would probably compare him to the illegitimate child of Patrick Ramsey and David Carr...meaning you don't want him running your offense.

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 10:47 PM) So even if the Sox are as active as you say, under the KW regime they're signing sucky players. Who is our top Latin American prospect and where do you project him? Bob Fautino De Los Santos. From, of all places, the Dominican Republic. Figures, eh? With his fastball and slider, he projects anywhere from a pretty dominant setup/closer to a #2 starter in the rotation, barring health. He good. No idea when DLS was signed, but he has absolutely fantastic stuff.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:04 AM) Man, I miss Schuerholz already. So...he is basically saying the same thing KW said last offseason, but with a few more adjectives...? and, if he wants to call it voodoo economics, he can; it's economics all the same. More owners are willing to pay for these players at a higher price, and thus, their salaries have increased. (and this is all the more reason the Sox should have traded Garland and Dye at the deadline, and Konerko (plus perhaps others) this offseason...an opinion, of course, but if KW intends on contending next year, he has to buy into the economics of today's game, and pay more than a player is usually worth, plus get a hell of a return for Garland in a deal this offseason, along with hoping he gets the free agent he wants and that the planets atleast get close to aligning)

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) ........ too easy. Dude's probly a 16 incher, not a big deal for me.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) Morneau will be gone as soon as he demands serious money, same thing with santana. This team will never retain big time players who command bigtime salaries. And when Maur mans up to that fact that he could make 12-15 mil per year too soon he will be gone. First of all, Santana will be gone, undoubtedly, because he's the best pitcher in the game and he could very possibly command the biggest yearly salary of any pitcher in history; however, you seem not to be considering the thought of them trading him this offseason, cashing in and getting a huge haul for him, and reloading some holes that way. Secondly, Morneau probably could be as well at some point - he only has 3 years of service time - but I imagine the Twins will sign attempt to sign him to a contract that takes him through his first year of free agency or so, probably similar to the deal that Mauer got from them. Finally, you are not recognizing how their ability to have Mauer, Morneau, and Santana in the first place and that's simply by developing them into the players they are today and making good trades that bring in productive (and in some cases, almost superstar) players. Why is it hard to think they could just develop and trade for more players who will fill those roles just as well in the future? People dismiss Carlos Silva as if he is a junk pitcher, but in his 4 years in Minnesota, he put up a 4.41 ERA and had an ERA of 4.21 or lower in 3 of the 4 years (as his 5.94 ERA last year skews that quite a bit). Silva, statistically, is probably a #2 in most rotations and at the minimum a #3. People thought the A's were done when they traded two of their big 3, and they seemingly put that to rest when Haren turned into a stud and they won the division last year. What's stopping the Twins from doing that?

That may be the greatest video I have ever seen ever.

For what it's worth, the White Sox did sign probably the best Panamanian player in the MLB right now, depending on how you rate Carlos Lee to Mariano Rivera (because to me, a 3 hitter has more value than a closer)