witesoxfan

QUOTE(dasox24 @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:57 PM) It wouldn't be fine for me. I don't understand your fascination with trading Thornton for a guy like Pena or a high potential A-ball type prospect (see some other thread for where you said that). Our bullpen is pretty awful and we need to keep anyone that has a chance at being at least "okay" for us. If he sucks next ST and doesn't make the team, then I don't have a problem with giving him up at that point. However, I have a hard time believing we'll have 7 better guys. Anyway, I don't think we can realistically expect KW to replace anyone but Bukvich, Wassermann, and Day. And it will be tough enough as it is adding three new relievers for next year. Having to find a 4th better than Thornton will be very tough, especially considering that every team is always looking for good relief help, so we'll be competing against 30 other teams to find those 4 new guys. So, I'd rather keep Jenks, Thornton, Logan, and Haeger. Maybe Russell can come up at the end of the year and show us something positive. Then, only needing to find 2 new guys will be much easier. I know absolutely what you're talking about. Quite frankly, peripherals and talent aside, Thornton isn't guaranteed to be a good reliever long term. Unlike a Damaso Marte or even JC Romero, he hasn't had multiple good seasons out of the bullpen, much less a dominant season, and he turns 31 in September. The next time the Sox will be fairly competitive will very likely be atleast 2009, or more likely, 2010 or 2011. If you can capitalize on his value right now and acquire a potential .800-.900 OPS player (very dependent upon a year to year basis due to terrible patience at the plate) who will be a very solid bat in the outfield right now, you do it. During time period when the Sox will return to competitiveness, Thornton will be between the ages of 33 and 35, and a reliever who throws very hard right now is not really something I want to count on going towards the future. And, if you give him up during spring training of next year, you are going to get a Joe Borchard type player. I guarantee you he'd make the team because of his contract and stuff, but success isn't guaranteed, and if has two bad years in a row you can count on getting much less than you would now. If I can move him for a high ceiling player in A ball that a team is willing to give up, or I can move him for a Wily Mo Pena who, at the very least, is almost assured of being a solid player for me, I do it in a second and don't look back. You are not going to get a top prospect for Thornton, and getting a starting player who still has a very high ceiling and is quite young at 25 (26 next season) is almost more than you can ask for. If KW can get Pena out of Thornton, I'd absolutely love the deal. Tell me though, you and BearSox; if you are going to trade Thornton, what would you expect in return? You can't expect a package of players nor a great prospect for him; if you think you can, you'll never move him and you'll lose him to free agency or DFA without ever receiving any type of compensation for him. If you can get a high ceiling A ball prospect, you could very easily get a star player, albeit he won't turn into a star until 4-6 years down the line, and if you get Wily Mo, you get a starter now and a potential superstar if he can ever learn how to draw a walk. With the way this organization develops relievers, and seeing how KW can pick up bullpen arms on the cheap, it'd almost be a crime not to. You got a good year and a half out of Thornton in the pen; it's now time to see if Vasquez or perhaps even someone like Paulino Reynoso can do something. In the mean time, the Sox are turning Joe Borchard, Mr. LTP who couldn't do anything else, into Wily Mo Pena who has a very solid bat and could turn into an absolute monster in the near future.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:15 PM) Wily Mo Pena doesn't excite me at all. He has good power potential, but thats all. If he give up anything real good for him, I won't be very pleased. Trading Matt Thornton for Pena would be fine with me.

QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) So the Marlins strategy would be labeled as re-tooling in your eyes? I guess we just disagree on what it means to re-tool vice rebuild. To me re-tooling means fielding as much of a veteran presence as possible so that you're ready to win. For instance, Uribe is a weakness that is costing us games so we need to replace, or re-tool, at that position. To do so, we take money away from the starting pitching corp and push it towards the SS position. As is evident by ATL, OAK, and MIN, a strong minor league system is imperative to have any success with this strategy...unless you're NY or BOS when money is no object. To rebuild would be to trade all your veteran pieces for cheap, ML-ready prospects...ie. Salty, Milledge, Kemp, etc. You expect to lose for the next couple of seasons as those players develop at the ML level and then become a true competitor as that maturation process begins to yield to success. If you truly believe that we can compete next season, then replacing Uribe with Renteria is not a bad move. The Marlins fielded a team last year that was like 50% rookies; how is that spreading the money around the diamond? The fact that they were a .500 team does not mean that they were retooling; the phrase used is not defined by how you finish, it's about the process you take. So no, what the Marlins did was entirely rebuilding because they were trading their veterans for minor leaguers. I wouldn't mind if the Sox did that, but from every indication KW has given, they aren't even considering that. I also don't believe a retool has to involve just MLB ready pieces; if that weren't the case, then I don't know what you'd call what Minnesota and Oakland have done over hte past few years. Oakland's minor league system isn't terrible, but it's never been a world beater either; it's by and large just trades and pickups Beane has made throughout the years. Basically, you are replacing Uribe with Renteria, but then you are looking at a rotation that includes two of Floyd/Haeger/Gio/Broadway, and that's if you are including trading Contreras too. Add to it the organization does not add any depth in such a trade too, and it's just not good. Look at the current team and tell me if trading Garland for Renteria is a good trade right now; if you say yes, then you aren't looking at the holes in the bullpen, the end of the rotation (meaning Contreras, not Danks), the entire outfield, the middle of the infield, and nearly the entire bench. The Sox are in need of some major changes quickly, and the changes have to be spread around the club or else the Sox flat out will not compete.

QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) Dye, AJ, Iguchi. Would you have traded JG for any of these guys? Hell no. '05 was truly an oddity. On paper, we went into that season with a team that was mediocre at best. I'm not saying that Renteria would have been a good deal, but with KW's apparent intentions of retooling it's not that bad of a deal, or at least not nearly as lopsided and disappointing as many here feel. Personally, we shouldn't be re-tooling. We should dump anyone and everyone of value and start from scratch with a true youth movement. This re-tooling crap will consist of a bunch of gambles that may or may not pay off, paving the way for another 4-5 years of pure mediocrity. Several people on this site had very good feelings about the White Sox going into the 2005 season; if you were to buy into what the media had said, then yes, the team going into the season was mediocre at best. No one did, and that team had virtually no holes to fill at all going into Spring Training. Garland for Renteria is a joke of a trade; you don't trade salary for salary, and if you are in a retooling mode, you are most certainly not looking to take on big contracts. When I hear the word retool, I tend to think about a team shaking the team up and spreading money around the diamond instead of bringing in a ton of huge contracts. At this point, acquiring Renteria does absolutely nothing for the White Sox because they are getting older, not younger, and are adding a bit of payroll. Does that sound like something a retooling team does?

Kenny would never use the media as leverage in negotiations, would he? Do the math here; Garland is signed through 2008, Vazquez through 2010. If the Sox are building for the future, and KW would hypothetically want to pay 2 starting pitchers big money, why would he keep Garland? Age is not an issue because neither is young nor old. If Garland is not available, then KW is being ridiculous; he's not going to resign Garland for much, if any less than the $14 mill a year he got Buehrle, and it is probably going to take a longer contract to acquire him.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 03:07 AM) wow you guys need to get with the times, me and Tmar have been looking at bash for over 4 years now well aren't you just Mr. Cool

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) Eh, just making a big deal out of nothing. Anyone else hear on Baseball Tonight when Buster Olney basically said it was a coincidence that Molina and Posada are catching for the same team and grew up in towns 90 miles apart in Puerto Rico? I found this a little off, went on mapquest and found out, yes, they're just about on other sides of the country (territory? what is Puerto Rico?). Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 05:28 PM) Where are the threads saying we should have kept Maggs and Lee? Funny, I can't find them anywhere. But there have been people before who have suggested the Sox should have kept Rowand rather than trading him for Thome. Iguchi and Contreras will be forever remembered, but I won't ever be clamoring for them back if/when they are let go/traded.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 11:56 PM) Jon Boy's resume kinda sucks, though. He usually struggles to keep his WHIP ratio under 1.40, and he only strikes out 4.5 batters per 9 innings. In fact, I can't think of anything that he does particularly well. That said, a lot of baseball people are gonna look at his win totals over the past few seasons and completely overrate him, so let's use that to our advantage and swap him for some quality prospects. When Garland has good control and he keeps the ball down, he's a great pitcher. When he does the exact opposite, he gets torched. He'll always give up a ton of hits, but if he keeps his walks and homers down, he'll be a good #3. He's also quite durable, going 190+ innings in 6 straight and 210+ in 4 straight, assuming no DL stints are on the horizon. Add to it a respectable K/BB of around 2.5-3 in recent years, and it's understandable how he's put up an ERA of about 4 the past 2 and a half years combined. But yeah, I am perfectly fine with trading Garland; I love him as a player, but with what he can bring back in return and the likelyhood that the Sox will want to resign him, he's better traded in a package rather than staying in Chicago.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) But if JO is stealing at a 75-80% clip, which he's been doing in the past 2 years at AAA and in the big leagues, then he's an awful lot better even if he's just a slap singles hitter. He still really shouldn't be starter material, unless it's merely as a 9th hitter.

all the better, keep him away from the South Side.

The person who mentioned the fact that the Sox have too many holes to fill has hit the preverbial nail on the head. You can't trade Vazquez, Garland, Jenks, Thome, or Konerko in a one for one deal at this point simply because they'll have future value to the team and there are too many holes to fill to be at the point where one for one deals are acceptable.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 11:29 AM) Podsednik is a poor fielder and not an good all-around hitter, but when he's getting on base at a clip of .350 or more, he's pretty damn valuable (when he's healthy and stealing bases). Can we agree on that? So putting aside the stuff about making contact or bunting, what if Jerry Owens simply becomes a guy with an OBP of .350 and steals bases like he has been? Couldn't he be part of a successful team if he does that while playing left field, just like Pods in 2005? Sorta; from what I've seen of Owens, it'd be hard for him to get 20 XBH's in a season because he's just that small. So if you're not in scoring position, you need to be getting on at about a .400 clip to be valuable. That's what makes a guy like Jimmy Rollins or Jose Reyes such great players is that they are always in scoring position; if they get on at a .330 clip, they'll still score 110-120 runs because how often they are only a hit away from scoring. With a single, you either need two hits or a stolen base and a hit to score. Owens can be a nice player, but I'm going to have to see more of him in the power department before I can even consider him a guy that can start, and two doubles in 116 ABs is not a good enough start.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) I fail to see your logic, cause last time I checked Lefties like Thornton don't grow on trees. The M's were idiots for trading him for only Joe Borchard. Unless we get one of the top "lower level" prospects, I'd rather see the team take their chances with Thornton. But then again I forgot, we got our future lefty "fireballer" (if his arm doesn't fall off before then) out of the pen with Poreda. They don't grow on trees, but KW has been able to find them when he needs to over the years; Marte comes to mind instantly, and he was a better pitcher with a better history than Matt Thornton and all he got was a utility player. Thornton's not going to get you more than that just because he can throw the ball 98 MPH from the left side of the mound. Marte got Mackowiak, JC Romero got Alexi Casilla; looking at both trades at the time, it looked like the Sox received the much better product in return. Now looking back, who got the better end, and why would you want to trade Thornton for a guy in AAA? You just won't get much value for him period. (and the Mariners weren't dumb. They had no use for a left hander they felt would always have control problems and thus would always struggle, and they had no more options for him; what other choice were they left with? they got a guy with great power in Borchard and tried to slip him through the cracks. Unfortunately for them, the Marlins were taking any and everything that had talent in its body and throwing it in the fire at the time)

QUOTE(joeynach @ Jul 18, 2007 -> 12:08 PM) I dont think you will see Rusell this year in the pen, I think you will see Carlos Vazquez. I think you'll see both and a few others too.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 09:39 AM) Yeah, and he's also not that strong of a bunter...yet. Owens is far from a finished product, so there's no reason to think he won't improve. And how does Owens' contact rate compare to Podsednik's? Don't look now, but Pods stuck out 75 times in 129 games in 2005. At that rate, if he plays 154 games (like he had the previous two seasons), that's 90 punchouts. Look, it's too early to say Owens won't improve his ability to make contact, or he won't ever be able to hit for Juan Pierre/Scott Podsednik power. To write him off as a fourth outfielder already seems silly when developing into a Scott Podsednik/Juan Pierre type isn't that far-fetched. You saw the Sox's success with Pods in 2005, and I bet you remember the guy from FOXsports.com tabbing him as the most overrated player in the majors. Right now, you're that guy from FOXsports.com. Yeah and Podsednik is not a good player. Whether I sound like that guy from Foxsports or not, Podsednik throughout his career has demonstrated that he is a below average all around hitter and that he could no longer steal bases effeciently after his hamstring and then groin injuries. And I'm being pretty nice. Jerry Owens can turn into a nice player, but Chuck Carr could have too and he was terrible aside from the fact that he could steal a base; at the same time, he could be Roger Cedeno who was a very good player for a little bit until injuries caught up to him and he was no longer a good player. I would guess he'll turn into a player somewhere in between those two just because it's safe to say it.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 02:45 AM) I'm sick of this All-Star OF crap. Lee was traded in a deal that I don't think we win the WS without, Maggs wouldn't resign, and Rowand isn't a good hitter despite his fluke numbers. As for Harris, this is proof that Atlanta has the best coaching in the game. Watch him find another team and start sucking again because he isn't good. I agree with every word in this post except the fact that dan doesn't think the Sox win the WS without the Lee trade; point blank, they don't win it without trading him. The Sox got bad value for Lee, but without the $6 mill that trading him freed up, the Sox aren't able to get Iguchi, Pierzynski, and Duque. Overused as that last phrase may be, it still holds all the ground in the world, and there is absolutely no chance the Sox win the World Series without those 3.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 01:25 AM) Count Maggs You're way off. I don't see any argument as to why you can't include Maggs as a good hitter the Sox developed. nonono, I'm counting him; I'm just saying not this decade. A technical thing more than anything. Over the past 10 years, the Sox have developed Maggs, Lee, Rowand, and Crede; perhaps you can include Cameron too, but quite frankly one extra player doesn't mean much to me.

QUOTE(briguy27 @ Jul 20, 2007 -> 11:08 PM) A sub-.500 team. This year- 46-50. They set ticket prices in the offseason. The Jays were coming off a second place finish going 87-75.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 12:09 AM) I've always said: give the kid his chances. I look forward to seeing Gavin Floyd pitch at the Major League level, preferably not at a time when we're contending, which is now, because I know what the results will be. Still, I'd like to see them. I know I'm not the only one who believes that Floyd is a terrible pitcher. I'm just glad you are willing for that. I'm sure there are some who have completely written him off. I think a comparison to Halladay - though the numbers and past histories support it slightly - is way too far fetched to even have a possibility of happening. However, I would not be surprised to see Floyd turn into a back end of the rotation starter; if he can do that alone, then the Sox have won the deal in regards to major league production.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jul 21, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) best.video.evar.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 12:43 AM) Why can you include Carlos and not Maggs? I include him because he only played 3/4 of the 99 season and was only a solid player; given, he was only a solid player in 2000 too, but I figure he developed into the player he is today from like 02-04; Maggs solidified himself as an All-Star in 1999 and slowly developed a little further beyond that. It's debateable; if you want to go without debate, only Crede and Rowand have been developed within the decade, and that's terrible.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 12:46 AM) You don't trade lefty pitchers who can hit 95-98 on their fastball for "lower level prospects" unless it is for a great talent. So you'd trade Lance Broadway for Alan Embree? even in his prime? Thornton's had one good year, and even that wasn't a dominant year out of the pen; aside from those 54 innings, he's done nothing to be considered one of the better lefties in the game. He's merely a good, but not great, bullpen arm. So, yeah, you trade a lefty pitcher that throws 95-98 for a lower level prospect with a high ceiling. Unless of course you want someone like Andy Gonzalez or Aaron Miles coming to the Sox.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jul 21, 2007 -> 02:47 PM) Fact. The 2003 Marlins won the World Series when Juan Pierre posted a .373 slugging percentage and stole 65 bases. Fact. Juan Pierre had a .320 slugging percentage with a .310 batting average in 2000, when he played 51 games. I don't know why people write of Jerry Owens as a career fourth outfielder already. He's had all of 121 at bats at this level, and I see him developing into a Juan Pierre kind of player. Owens could be a valuable player in 2008, especially if he can be placed in left field. Jerry Owens doesn't make nearly enough contact to warrant a comparison to Pierre. You are talking about a guy that makes contact in 19 of 20 (or 94.5%) of his plate appearances in the majors, as opposed to the 7 of 8 (or 87.5%) of his plate appearances in the minor leagues, which almost assuredly will get worse in the majors; thats a difference between a guy striking out 40 times in 725 plate apperances and 91 times in 725 plate apperances.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jul 22, 2007 -> 12:17 AM) Russell made his debut out of the Barons pen. 2 innings, one K, and one hit allowed. Let's get him fast tracked to the bigs for a September callup. Phillips can get knocked off the 40-man roster for all I care. Sisco is doing better in AAA, he could earn another shot soon. I'm with the throw guys into the fire theory for the bullpen. Somebody has to stick or the Sox will have only one trusted reliever going into the off season. I would be looking to trade Thornton, and I am not sure how the Sox can justify keeping him long term. He's having a bit of a rough year ERA and WHIP wise, but he's got pretty solid peripherals; the H/9 will go down with a good defense behind him instead of the mediocre defense the Sox put out there, his K and HR rates are there, and he really hasn't been terribly erratic with his control. I doubt you get an outstanding piece, but I'd target someone in the lower minors to get him anyways; you can't build an organization by trading away players and then getting mediocre players back in return, which is what you'd get for Thornton if you traded him for a guy in AA or above. I also look to move MacDougal too, but I'd hold off on trading him simply because of how terrible he has been this year. I doubt there's any way he can be this bad next year, and if he bounces back, you'll not only have an arm in the pen but also a nice piece to trade with an affordable contract.