whitesox61382

Brando, I didn't overvalue either Wright or Pacheco, so quit overexegerating. At no point did I say that either were guaranteed to be good major league pitchers. The point with the Perez deal was that the Dodgers didn't deserve much more than Konerko in return, so a couple of toss-ins(like Wright and/or Pacheco) should have been enough to be swing a deal. Both have rebounded nicely so far and have realitively similar value(remember to adjust Perez's stats). The point with Reed is that he probably isn't a future star and his upside potential is rather limited. What you see is pretty much what you get. He projects to be a... .280-.300/10-15/60-70 25-30 2B 60-70 BB 60-70 SO 15-20 SB high .700-low .800 OPS ...calibur player. Those are decent stats, but that calibur of a player isn't worth a young, cheap, talented front of the rotation starter like Sheets or CC(which you agree with). This might be a case in which YOU overrate the value of a Sox player.

I don't have the time to go through all of these threads finding Otis rumors, partly because I can't think of a quick and effective way to do so. Off the top of my head I believe that he spun a couple of different Maggs for Nomar rumors with different players involved. I also believe that he started an Anaheim or LA rumor(maybe both) that never formulated. The point being that he has mentioned a handful of rumors, none of which have materialized, yet you speak of him like he can't be wrong.

I forgot to mention that Melvin is doing the same thing with Sheets that KW did with Maggs. He is saying that any player could be had for the right price, but he isn't going to trade Sheets unless he is just blown away by a deal. Reed and Cotts are not enough to blow Melvin away and make him seriously think about trading Sheets to the Sox. Sox fans(and even the organization as a whole) have a tendancy to overrate their player/prospects. Believe it or not, but a lot of scouts/organizations don't think that highly of Reed. He had the highest batting average in the minors and put together a great year, yet some prospect ratings don't even have him in their top 20. He doesn't have any great tools, and the current major league player that he is most often compared to is Mark Kotsay. I am sorry but teams aren't lining up willing to hand over a player of Sheets calibur for an unproven player that projects to be similar to Mark Kotsay. Reed's 2003 season looks like a fluke(similar to another former minor league player of the year and overhyped prospect named Rauch). Reed looked overmatched by major league pitching during ST and has put up rather ordinary numbers in a great hitters park at AAA, so lets not pretend like Reed is the best thing since sliced bread. I wish him the best of luck and hope that he develops into a HOF calibur player with the Sox, but you have to learn to look at things from other teams perspectives and learn to take both the positives and negatives in an attempt to form a more accurate opinion. I do like Cotts, but there are certainly some flaws that other teams are aware of. The most obvious is his control. He has had decent control so far, but other teams scouts/organizations are aware that it could be a long-term problem. I don't care how good your stuff is, if you can't consistantly throw strikes, than you won't be sucessful in the majors. He also lacks a secondary/offspeed pitch. At this point he is a one pitch pitcher, and while his fastball is deceptive and above average, it is not good enough by itself, especially if Cotts wants to be a starter. The lack of a secondary pitch is also a big concern in the long-term. While I have confidence in Cotts that he will develop into a solid major league pitcher, he is far from a guarantee. Another thing that you have to keep in mind is that the Sox minor league system is currently considered below average. There are some prospects in the lower minors with high potential, but there are few high potential guys in the upper minors. In other words, the Sox #1/2 prospects might only be #3/4 in another organization. For a young(25), cheap(2.425M), talented(2.71 ERA), and long-term(won't be a FA until 2006) it will take more than Reed and Cotts. That might be a starting point, but the Sox would likely have to throw in another one of their top prospects(like a Munoz). Someone else brought up a very good point, the asking price will probably be similar to the asking price for Colon when he was shipped to Montreal for 3 top prospects. The difference is that Sheets is younger, cheaper, has more upside, and will be around for a year longer. Just something to think about. With that said, I would do a Reed, Cotts, and Munoz for Sheets deal. You have to realize that Sheets is more than just a 2 month fix. Chances are that neither Cotts or Munoz will ever be as good as Sheets. And while Reed might develop into a solid player the Sox depth in the outfield(in both the minors and majors) makes him expendable for a pitcher of Sheets calibur. Quality starting pitching is the hardest thing to find and the #1 recipe for sucess, so adding a player of Sheets calibur would be well worth the asking price of Reed, Cotts, and Munoz.

I am sorry, but once again you are wrong about Maggs. The possibility of Maggs being traded in the offseason was mentioned way before Otis mentioned the possibility of him being part of the ARod deal. I even remember hearing rumors that Maggs could be part of a big deal before Otis even sniffed the possibility. He just so happened to be the 1st one to break the news, that doesn't mean that it hadn't been thought of or mentioned before. Please learn to think critically about things. I am not sure about the Wunsch for Bellhorn deal, because I wasn't around during that time, but there have been MULTIPLE instances(during the past offseason) in which someone has posted a Otis rumor and said that this was the guy that mentioned to the Maggs to Boston deal so he has to be right, only to have the rumor never materialize. How many rumors does he have to mention that do not occur before you realize that you are putting your faith in a guy that has never been right? Your asking me not to be stupid, but you are the one that is believing a guy that has never been right(until a rumor that he brings up happen). Which one of us is being stupid about this? Do you honestly lack the ability to critically think about the issue at hand, and better yet think for yourself? Like I said, I have some ocean front property in Kansas that is available if you are stupid enough to believe every word out of this Otis guys mouth. How old are you? 5? Please do not be so gulible. He is turning out to be the White Sox version of Peter Gammons, which is to say that he throws out a rumor every other day, yet only once in a full moon does one of the rumors actually occur(which has yet to happen for this Otis carracter). Let me ask you not to be stupid about this

Not this Otis stuff again. How gulible are you guys? If you believe every word that comes out of this guys mouth, than I have some ocean front property in Kansas that I would like to sell. Seriously, the guy mentioned the possibility of Maggs being part of the ARod deal, and all of a sudden the guy is always right. You do realize that other sources mentioned the possibility of Maggs being part of a possible ARod trade before Otis even mentioned it. Furthermore, there have been at least 2 cases since than in which someone has brought up rumors by Otis that were never even mentioned by a major source as a possibility(paper, credible website, ect), yet alone happened. The fact of the matter is that not 1 of the rumored trades that Otis has mentioned has ever happened, and in the end that is the only thing that matters. Please take what this guy Otis says with a grain of salt, and learn to think critically about things. 1) Why would any team trade young, cheap, talented pitching? 2) In the remote possibility that either of these 2 guys are available, the asking price for either will be far more than Reed/Cotts or a package centered around Borchard. If no deal occurs involving either Sheets or CC can we officially stop saying that Otis is always right? From my standpoint, he is throw darts at a board and hoping that one of them will stick(which has yet to happen) in an attempt to pump his chest and say I told you. PS...I heard the Sox are going after Randy Johnson in a package that includes Reed, Cotts, and Rauch. Remember that I mentioned the possibility of Konerko for Perez after I read it in the papers(similar to Otis), so I must always be right. Where is the green text when you need it?

The Juan Pierre comparison might be a little bit of a stretch, but I see a lot of similarities from a statistical standpoint. The big difference between the two is that Pierre was a career .330 hitter in the minors, and Spidale hasn't come close to matching that until this season(so far). IF Spidale can keep his average over .300, which is a big IF considering he seems to slow down as a season goes on, than I think he will go a long way in putting himself on the map and establishing himself as a legit prospect. Besides BA, they are almost identical. Here is a look at Pierre's stats at AA in 2000(he was 23) and a comparison to Spidale to this point: .326 439 AB 63 R 16 2B 4 3B 0 HR 32 RBI 46 SB 33 BB 26 SO .317 161 AB 30 R 15 2B 2 3B 0 HR 13 RBI 10 SB 23 BB 25 SO Obviously Pierre has far more AB's, but the trends are very similar. In fact, Spidale is on pace to score more runs, more doubles, more triples, similar amount of RBI's, fewer SB, more BB, and more SO. They seem to be similar players, ie guys that hit for average, put the ball into play, have great speed, have no power, about a 1:1 SO:BB ratio, cover a lot of ground defensively, and have weak arms. Lets just hope that Spidale can keep it up and put his name among the other top outfield prospects in the organization. Having a Juan Pierre type player at the top of the order is a valuable weapon to have. I guess it is a little wishful thinking on my behalf.

This guy seems to be flying under the radar(with the Sox minor league outfield depth) and is putting together quite a season at AA. What is the scouting report on this guy? I know that he has some serious speed. Could this guy be a Juan Pierre calibur player? It seems that he has many of the same qualities as Pierre(from a statistical standpoint). What is your input Rex since he is currently playing in your part of the country?

But what happens when that blind squirrel starts to consistantly find nuts? Maybe he isn't blind after all?

Some speculation is used to predict the future, but past results/trends(which is what I am basing my opinions and future predictions on) allow one to more accurately predict the future. You on the other hand are throwing darts hoping that one will stick by basing your opinions and future predictions on pure speculation/hunches. Which is likely to be more accurate? What hard facts have you shown? Ponson and Clement aren't in the same boat. Clement's peripherals are far better than Ponsons', and peripherals are usually a good indication of staying power and consistancy. It is easy to understand why he struggled in Florida and San Diego....he was young and inexperienced. I would say that roughly 90%(random guess) of major league pitchers struggle to some extent in their 1st couple of years. There is a pretty common development trend that occurs for most athletes. They generally struggle their 1st couple of years(22-25), they show signs of improvement(25-28), they reach their prime(28-33), they show signs of regressing(33-36), they hit the downside of their career(36+). Clement fits this trend perfectly and like I mentioned above, his impressive peripherals suggest staying power and consistancy. People often have a misconception of what the average ERA for a teams #1 starter, #2 starter, ect is. They are often surprised to find that it is much higher than expected. A poster by the name of Boogs(from the ESPN board) did some research in which he took the 5 pitchers with the most starts and ranked them by ERA. He than took the average ERA for each #1 starter, #2 starter, ect, and the numbers were much higher than expected. He also did research on only playoffs teams to show what the "better" #1 starter, #2 starter, ect ERA average was. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe that the playoff teams average ERA for a #1 starter was around 3.40-3.50; #2 starter was around 3.90-4.00: #3 starter was around 4.30-4.40, ect. The average ERA for a starter in the NL in 2003 was 4.43, which is to say that was the ERA of the "average" #3 starter. So Clement's ERA of 4.11 would be considered a solid #2 starters ERA. So based on statistics Clement was a solid #2 starter in 2003 and a #1 starter in 2002. No one gives two rat s***s if he mets your standards for a #2 starter. Yes, a 4.00 ERA is close to the average ERA for a playoff teams #2 starter. If you take the 5 pitchers with the most starts and rank them as #1 starter, #2 starter, ect based on ERA, than these would be your #2 starters for the 2003 AL playoff teams: Yankees - Clemens 3.91 ERA Red Sox - Wakefield 4.09 ERA Twins - Radke 4.49 ERA A's - Mulder 3.13 ERA average = 3.905 As you can see a 4.00 ERA isn't that far off from the average ERA for a 2003 AL playoff team. Like I said, you would be surprised how high the ERA's are for an average starter. This difference between my opinion and your opinion on recovery time and the affects of a knee injury are seperated by personal experience. Which do you think is more accurate, someone who has 1st hand experience or someone who is throwing darts at a board? Not only do I have personal experience to back up my opinion, but quite a few examples in all sports. The best examples are in football(since there are more ACL injuries and a much larger sample size). Like clockwork, players recovering from ACL surgury almost always have a so-so year in their 1st year back, but follow it up with 2nd year that resembles their pre-injury numbers(EJames and JLewis are a couple of prime examples). Patterson's plate disipline has actually improved so far this season. before 2004: 1094 AB/43 BB = 25.44 AB/BB 2004: 161 AB/12 BB = 13.42 AB/BB before 2004: 1094 AB/266 SO = 4.11 AB/SO 2004: 161 AB/37 SO = 4.35 AB/SO Next time check the stats before you "speculate" about something that isn't true. The defense rests. ps sorry about the length

Brando, arguing with you is like arguing with a 5 year old kid and your wife combined. You never admit it when you are wrong no matter how much stats/information/facts are presented against, and the fact that almost all your information is backed by pure speculation instead of hard facts. That makes for a weak arguement on your behalf. I don't need to watch another game this season in order to show you that he has reached 93 mph, because he has done it on multiple occasions this season. I honestly think you are the one that needs to watch the games more carefully and understand that the little number in the top corner is the speed of the pitcher, because on numerous games he has reached the 93 mph mark. Furthermore, the main point is that his fastball is still a plus pitch, which few knowledgible baseball fans would disagree with. Health problem...Health problem...Health problem....PURE SPECULATION...PURE SPECULATION...PURE SPECULATION. The guy has no history of arm problems yet you routinely bring up his health. Sure there is the chance that he could get hurt, but you can say that with EVERY pitcher in the game, so quit using it as a flaw. What percentage of major league pitchers have had at least 1 major arm/shoulder/elbow surgury in the past 5 years? Yet you consider him a health concern. I am sorry but your hunch/speculation holds no water against hard stats(5 straight seasons of 30+ starters and no major surgury). I hope that you aren't a defense lawyer, because everyone of your clinents would be in jail if you tried to defend them with a hunch against the prosecusion who uses facts. Once again, his perfermance in San Diego and Florida has almost no relevance. Its funny how I brought up how flawed drawing comparisons based on career stats are, and you never mention them again. The fact of the matter is that he has posted two solid seasons with great peripherals(which indicate staying power). He simple isn't the same pitcher now. It would be like using Randy Johnson's early control problem seasons in Seattle to indicate how he is pitching now. It has no relevance, and is a clear case of your grasping at straws to find flaws. Everyone can see that in your arguement except you. You are stupid if you think that every telecast shows Clement limping to the dugout. For starters, the telecast rarely shows a pitcher walking to the dugout. Secondly, it is nearly impossible to tell if a player is limping, and what the causes might be if he is. Your now that he has no history of health problems, so you try and make this weak arguement hold water, but I am not going to buy your BS. You can't use health problems as a flaw considering that he has been one of the most healthiest pitchers in the game over the past 5 years. End of arguement. Clement and Colon don't have much in common. Clement is long and skinny with a perfect pitchers body. While Colon is fat and short with a less than ideal pitchers body. Clement has never had more than 205 inning pitched in a season and only averages 97 pitches per start over his career. While Colon has exceeded the 220 innings pitched mark in each of the past 3 seasons and averages over 105 pitches per start over his career. Clements mechanics aren't flawed, neither are Colons for the most part. Comparing their work ethics is like comparing Harris and Konerko from a speed standpoint. The fact of the matter is that Clement and Colon have little in common, and Colon is far more likely to struggle/get hurt because of his work load/poor conditioning. Once again a pathetic attempt on your behalf to make your weak health concern arguement stick. You are going to have to come stronger than that if you want to battle the big boys. I hope that the Cubs try and resign Maggs, because that would mean they would have over 55M tied up in 5 players with a ton of holes left to address. Even the Cubs have limits to their spend power, and history has shown that tying up large portions of the payroll in a few players is the recipe for failure. Clement doesn't have to be dominating for him to offset Maggs offensive lose. IF Clement comes to the Sox and posts 10+ wins, 4.00 ERA, and 150 IP, compared to the godawful stats that the current 5th starters are averaging, than the 150 point OPS drop(potentially less) from Maggs to Patterson is more than offset(not to mention the improvements that Patterson brings from a speed and defense perspective). Clement has a pretty big following on the northside, and winning is the #1 recipe for drawing fans, so there is no concern in that area. You are just going to have to take the word of a college athlete who has come back from 2 ACL surguries. It take at least 1 full year to fully recover and get back to top form. It is no coincidence that most pro athletes don't get back to the career averages until the 2nd full season back from the surgury. Take it from me, he is not 100% all the way back to his full speed, yet he still has above average speed(both defensively and on the base pads). You need to look at his splits more carefully. He did have a great May, but he was still consistant in April and June where he posted respectable high .700 OPSs. That is pretty consistant if you ask me. Check out most hitters splits and you will see that they usually have 1 or 2 good months that stand out. The great thing about the overall numbers is that it equally measures the good and the bad, and in the end Patterson had a .840 OPS, which shows that he has the potential to be an .800 OPS guy. Furthermore, the guy is only 24 for pete sakes. Are you saying that he has reached his peek and has no room for improvement? Most 24 year olds are in their 1st season in the majors. He has the skills to be a very good player and has plenty of room for improvement. His power isn't gone either. He has 14 extra base hits so far, which is only 3 less than the great Maggs, 1 less than CLee, the same as Konerko, and more than Crede for comparison, so how has his power completely left him. Furthermore, how has his power reached a peek when he isn't fully healthy(over 1 year to recover fom ACL surgury) and he is only 24. Will you quit with the Cards rainout? You know that you are desperate when you have to fall back on adding games that didn't count. His 2003 ERA was within .20(which is almost the difference in one game as you continue to point out with your Cards example) of pitchers like Russ Ortiz(20 game winner), Hampton, Maddux, Leiter, Millwood, and Eaton. It was better than pitchers like Peavy, Penny, Wade Miller, Lawrence, Wolf, Sheets, Perez, and Glavine. I would say that most of the pitchers listed away are considered front of the rotation starters. Furthermore, the league average for NL starters last year was in the 4.50-4.60 range(middle of the rotation starter), so Clements 4.11 ERA was well average the league average(solid #2 starter). The stats severely hurt you arguement. Thanks for playing, and I will continue to pick apart your weak arguements. Might I suggest that you use stats/information/sources/facts to back up your arguements instead of pure speculation. It makes for a stronger arguement.

Regressed isn't really the word I would use. His ERA only increased by .51, he actually won 2 more games, and his peripherals were still outstanding. He showed that his 2002 season wasn't a fluke and that he was establishing himself as a solid front of the rotation starter. He has only further prove that point this season. This IS a must win season, and this trade IMPROVES the Sox chances of winning now. What has been this teams biggest weakness? The 5th starter by far. They have combined to post an 0-6 record, 28.2 IP, and a 9.73 ERA. How can you say that replacing those numbers with a 6-3 record, 60.1 IP, and a 2.69 ERA isn't a SIGNIFICANT improvement and drasticly increases the Sox chances of winning this year? The Sox would take an offensive hit by replacing Maggs with Patterson, but this lineup is good enough to make up for that. Plus Patterson does provide some improvements. Improved defense in the outfield, improved speed(more SB and fewer DP), and adds another lefty bat to the order. Besides, I truely believe that Patterson could have a good 2nd half considering that it normally takes 1 year to complete health from an ACL surgury. The point is that the improvement from Clement to the current group of 5th starters is great than the decrease that is likely from Maggs to Patterson. Therefore, this trade DOES improve the Sox chance of winning now. Not to mention the fact that Clement is capable of shuting down a team in the playoffs(something few of the Sox current starters are capable of). It is that simple. When you factor into the equation that this trade puts the Sox in better position in the future(with Patterson and compensation picks versus nothing), than it is a no-brainer. Improve the team now and in the future.

The only reason why I brought up Johnson and Clemens was to show you that 2 above average pitches are more than enough, and Clement has 2 above average pitches. So listing that as a flaw is a clear case of you grasping at straws in a weak attempt to prove a point. Nice try. Here is an unbias source: "Along with a sinking fastball in the low 90s and a terrific hard slider, he mixes in a few four-seamers and changeups." His sinker is in the low 90's and his four-seam fastball is generally in the 92-94 range. I have consistantly seen him in the 92-94 range over the past couple of years. Either way, the point is that he has an above average fastball(both velocity and movement wise) and a GREAT slider. What does watching a game have to do with his groin? I watch about 100 Cubs game a year(WGN, ESPN, TBS, and games against the D-Backs), and I can't remember them mentionin a groin injury. The point is that he still made 32 starts and has 5 straight seasons of 30+ starts, so playing the injury card is just another weak attempt of yours to find flaws when there are none to be found. Nice try. Comparing Colon's health/conditioning to Clement is almost as bad as me comparing Clement to Johnson or Clemens(although I wasn't comparing them from a numbers/career standpoint). Colon has 250+ lb on a 5'10 frame, while Clement has a perfect pitchers body(at 6'3 210 lb) and stays in pretty good shape. How is a solid #2 starter not a difference maker? Please put down the crack pipe before you type. You realize that the Sox are handing away a game every 5th day with their #5 starter. Adding a solid #2 starter(which is what a high 3-low 4 ERA pitcher is today) would move everyone down a spot in the rotation and SIGNIFICANTLY improve the rotation. In the case that the Sox do make the playoffs, he would give the Sox a very good starter who is capable of winning a game by himself. How is that not a difference maker? Its far from a guarantee that the Cubs would resign him. They have 17M locked up in Sammy, they have holes at CF, SS, 3B, C, CP, ect that need to be addressed, raises from Lee(7M; 2M increase), Wood(8.5M; 1.5M increase), Maddux(9M; 3M increase), Prior(?), ect. 14+M/yr for Maggs is not a guarantee. Patterson's D is above average. Read a scouting report and watch some games. He has above average range and his great speed makes up for bad jumps. His arm isn't great, but it isn't terrible either. Patterson no where close to .800 OPS? Please tell me that you knew that he had a .840 OPS last year before getting hurt. As someone who has had 2 ACL surguries it takes more than a year before you are completely healthy and back to your old ways. Give him some time. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a very good 2nd half. Furthermore, are you suggesting that a 24 year old kid can't improve? He has already showed some minor improvements from a plate disipline standpoint. His power will come back, along with his speed. This kid isn't far from an .800+ season, and he has done it in the past. Might I suggest that you check the stats before you get punked again. Thanks for playing. Perez has had a very good year, but just as pointed out for Clement, you have to adjust his stats for the AL and take him out of by far the best pitchers park in baseball. I would have liked to see Perez in a Sox uniform, but he is far from a proven player. Clement has posted 2 consecitive solid seasons and is adding another as we speak. That is called consistancy, which is something that Perez has yet to show(only 1 good season in his career). I am going to hold you to that 3.75+ ERA prediction. Be prepared to eat some chow(nothing new for you).

Lets get a few things straight. Clement is 29 and not 30. Either way he is still in the prime of his career, so what is the point that you are trying to make? Is this a poor attempt to find something wrong with Clement, because thats what it appears to be. He is a two pitch pitcher, but so are many starters. Johnson and Clemens are just two examples of 2 pitch pitchers, and they have been the 2 most dominating pitchers in this era, so once again what is your point? Clements slider is rated as one of the top 5 sliders in the game, and for the record his fastball is almost always in the mid 90's. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw his fastball consistantly in the low 90's and I watch a ton of Cubs games(I hate to admit that, but living in Arizona I only get WGN and love to watch baseball). When you have an above average fastball and a GREAT secondary pitch, than you don't need a 3rd or 4th pitch. I think an arguement can be made that most starters would be better off throwing 2 pitches(a fastball and their top offspeed pitch). How many times does a pitcher get beat on his 3rd or 4th best pitch? Once again a poor attempt on your behalf to find a flaw in Clement. There is always concerns about a pitcher getting hurt, and sliders do put a lot of stress on a pitchers arm, but you can't let that prevent you from making a move. RJohnson throws a slider and has almost never had arm problems. Some pitchers arms are made to endure more pain, and Clement has never had arm problems(5 straight seasons with 30+ starts). His back and groin? Now you are really grasping at straws. He has had 30+ starts the past 5 seasons, so quit with this BS injury stuff. He has been one of the most healthiest pitchers in the game over the past half decade. He will be a FA this year, but so will most of the pitchers that the Sox are targeting. Furthermore, if the Sox were to trade Maggs for Clement, than they would save 8M. Chances are that Clement would cost less than 14M to sign, so I think you can make an arguement that Clement would be easier to sign, wouldn't take up as much of the payroll as Maggs, and addresses a bigger weakness(a top or the rotation starter is harder to find than a power hitting corner outfielder, especially with the Sox system staked with outfield prospects). Furthermore, chances are that the Sox won't offer Maggs arbitration if he walks, which means no compensation picks. The Sox would most likely offer Clement arbitration since he would probably only get 8-10M. Who knows maybe he loves Chicago and will accept, but even if he doesn't the Sox would still get compensation picks for him. Career ERA is not a useful stat in most cases. How does his ERA when he was an inexperienced 25-26 year old pitcher relate to him now? The answer, it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that his ERA over the past 2+ years(a much more accurate indication of how is pitching now) is 3.70, which is an ERA of a front of the rotation starter. Factor in that he averages 200+ innings, 12+ wins(the past 2 years), an opponent BA under .227, and roughly 8.5 SO per 9 innings, and you have yourself a front of the rotation pitcher. End of arguement. Once again, you use career stats because you are grasping at straws. Everyone can see how flawed your arguement is and how career stats aren't a good indication of how a player is performing in the present(which is the only thing that matters). I don't know what you have against Clement. Maybe you hate every Cub no matter how good they are. Maybe Clement beat you up in high school. Maybe you just want to get an arguement with me. What ever your reasoning, you have presented an extremely flawed arguement. Few experts would agree with you that Clement IS NOT a front of the rotation starter. His WHIP the past 2+ years is a solid 1.25, add that to his his amazing opponents BA, low HR total, high SO total, 200+ IP, low opponent OPS, and double digit wins, and his peripheral are outstanding over the past couple of years and show that he is a top of the rotation starter. This would be a great trade for the Sox in the short-term and long-term. Short-term benefits Adding Clement would give the Sox a front of the rotation starter(which they definately need) and give them one of the better rotations in baseball. While Patterson is overrated, his offensive dropoff from Maggs isn't THAT significant. Not to mention the fact that he improves the defense, adds more speed, and gives the Sox a lefty bat in the middle of the lineup. Losing Wunsch is no bigger with Cotts moving back to the bullpen. Clement + Patterson > Maggs + Wunsch. This move gives the Sox a better shot at winning this year. Long-term benefits Maggs and Wunsch are probably gone after this season with nothing to show for them. While Clement is a FA the Sox chances of signing him would probably be better than signing Maggs since he will probably cost 2-4M less to sign. Furthermore, as mentioned above the Sox would almost certainly offer Clement arbitation, which can't be said about Maggs, so even if Clement were to sign with someone else they would likely get compensation picks. The Sox would also have Patterson in CF for the next couple of years. Like I mentioned before, he isn't far off from a .280/20/80 20 SB 30 2B season with very good D in CF. He has also made some strides to improve his BB total. He is relatively cheap over the next couple of years as well. So lets review: Patterson + compensation picks > nothing. This trade improves the team in the short-term and long-term. It also hurts the Cubs, which is always a good thing. They will be stuck with 3 corner outfielders making up one of the worst defensive outfielders. They will make their already right handed dominated lineup even more right handed dominated. They will trade away their best pitcher at this point(Clement or Zambrano), and with the health of Wood and Prior in the air that isn't a smart move. The Cubs won't likely be able to keep Maggs with Sosa getting 17M next year, Alou with an option for 11.5M next year, and Wood a FA(their top priority assuming he is healthy). It is a win-win-win situation. Now if only the Cubs were stupid enough to make that move.

This writer has too much time on his hands and needed to fill some space. This trade purposal of his has no chance of happening, but it is fun to break it down. It is pretty obvious that it favors the Sox though, and here is why. 1) If ARod has shown us anything it is that mid-market teams(like the Sox) can't tie up large portions of payroll in one player. Maggs getting 14+M/yr would serevely handicap the Sox. Besides, he isn't worth quite that much. Add in the fact that the Sox are extremely deep in outfield prospects, and it appears that Magg's days in a Sox uniform are numbered. Furthermore, it is unlike that the Sox will offer him arbitration, with the fear that he could get 14+M in arbitration and decide to stay with the Sox, which means no compensation picks. So getting something in return for Maggs would be nice. 2) This trade looks very similar to a trade that the Sox and Cubs made about a decade ago. A raw but young talented outfielder traded for a short-term solution(if the Cubs didn't sign Maggs long-term). I am not a huge Patterson fan, in fact I think he is one of the most overrated players in the game, but with that said, he isn't too far off from .280/20/80 30 2B 20 SB .800 OPS type numbers(not to mention very good D in CF). He was on pace for those numbers last year(before he got injuried). Furthermore, he has shown a little more plate disipline this year(12 BB in 157 AB's on pace for 45 BB). He is still very young(24), cheap(500K), and won't be a FA for a couple of years. He also adds a left handed bat to the order. 3) I don't think people realize how good Clement is. On most staffs this guy is an ace(he would be an ace on the Sox staff). He isn't some veteran bottom of the rotation starter. He has been very consistant over the past 2+ years. One amazing stat is that opponents haven't hit above .227 against him the past 2+ years(including a .190 BA against this year). He is also an innings eater(200+ the past 2 years). At this point I would probably trade Clement for Maggs straight up, since a top of the rotation pitcher is harder to find. Do the math, a top of the rotation starter + a young talented outfielder who will be around for a couple of years > a very good outfielder who is gone after this year + a toss in lefty. To bad the Cubs aren't stupid enough to do this trade.

Yes, Shields can be an effective starter and if the Sox got him I would imagine that they would put him in the rotation as the 5th starter with Cotts moving back to the pen to give the Sox 2 lefties in the pen. Yes, the Angel's rotation is struggling at this point, but I think that can be seen as a positive. Most of their starters are proven major leaguers who will probably get better as the season goes on. They also have a youngster named Kevin Gregg in the pen who has started a couple of games, and he could move to the rotation to replace a struggling/injuried starter. I do admit that the Angels would be reluctant to give up a good, young, cheap arm like Shields, but you have to give o receive, and the Angel's get a drastic improvement at 3rd, a solid lefty in the pen, and a decent pitching prospect who could contribute this year(Grilli/Rauch/Diaz). I think that is worth a solid right handed long reliever/spot starter and a struggling middle infielder. I still think Valentin can put up a solid high .700-low .800 OPS. So far he has held his own batting lefty against lefties, and he can't get much worse than batting righted handed(posted sub .500 OPS's the last two years doing so). Besides, that is a significant improvement over the likely sub .600 OPS that Amezaga would produce. I don't think Valentin's 5M is a problem. The fact that the Angel's ownership have put so much money into this team, I think they are at a point of no return. Adding an additional 5M(more like 3.5-4M at this point) is a small price to pay to improve this team and only improve their chances of making the playoffs and more importantly, making a run in the playoffs. Jack Wilson has never played 3rd and he is off to a fluke start. Despite his great start, his career OPS is still only .650.

I think it is a realitively fair trade for both sides. With Anderson and Erstad out(along with Glaus) the Angels need to add some proven offense before it is too late. They have been relatively lucky to get decent production out of role players and youngsters, but how much longer is that going to last? Right now they have Alfredo "I can't hit my weight" Amezaga playing 3rd. I am not a huge Valentin fan, but you don't think that Anaheim could use his 50+ extra base hits and 70+ RBI's at this point? As you pointed out, Wunsch is a very underrated pitcher, and is extremely effective against lefties. At this point the Angels don't have a lefty in the pen, and while a couple of their righties fare well against lefties, it would be nice for them to have a left handed specialist. Toss in a solid pitching prospect like a Grilli(or Rauch/Diaz), and I think you have a pretty fair trade. The Angels are trading from a strength, since they proven righties like K-Rod, Percival, Weber, Gregg, and Donnelly(when he comes off the DL) already in the pen. Amezaga is a throw in at this point. This kid can't hit at all, but he is solid defensively and has good speed, which is better than any other potential Sox utility infielder provide(if Valentin were traded). Giving up Shields would be tough, but I do think that this trade would improve the Angels as well as the Sox.

An interesting trade might be Valentin, Wunsch, and a decent pitching prospect(Grilli) for Shields and Amezaga. I think this is a realistic and reasonable trade for both teams. There was a Wunsch for Amezaga trade rumor floating around before Wunsch got hurt, and there was a recent rumor of Valentin for Sele, so tossing in Grilli(or another decent pitching prospect) and asking for Shields instead seems pretty fair. I think Valentin has more value than Sele IMO(and I am not a Valentin fan). Both teams trade from areas of strength to improve weaknesses. Why Anaheim does this trade? With Glaus out indefinately(along with a couple of other key injuries) the Angels are look for a replacement at 3B. Valentin would be a realistic option. He will provide them with some pop, decent D, and some leadership. He is a FA after this season, so Anaheim can put their top 3B prospect McPherson their next season. The Angels bullpen doesn't have a lefty, although they have a couple of righties that pitch well against lefties. So Wunsch will provide the Angels with a lefty specialist. Grilli(or another decent pitching prospect) will provide them with a decent young arm. I am not a huge fan of Grilli, but he has a decent shot of being a quality middle reliever. Losing Shields would hurt a little, but the Angels are very deep with right handed relievers. At this point Amezaga doesn't project to be anything more than a utility infielder, and with Kennedy and Eckstein up the middle, the Angels don't have much use for him. Why the Sox do this trade? Shields is one of the best kept secrets in the AL, and because of this the Angels might be reluctant to part with him. His overall numbers are very impressive. He has a career ERA of 2.69, career BA against of .227, career OPS against of .624, career WHIP of 1.20, and a solid career 2.3 SO:BB ratio. He has a good arm, is still relatively young at 28, is very cheap at 375K, won't be a FA, and can start or pitch in long relief. I would love to see Shields in a Sox uniform as the 5th starter, with Cotts moving back to the pen to give the Sox 2 lefties(although he deserves a shot to start). The Sox have been after Amezaga before. I have not been that impressed with him and I don't think he hits enough to be a starter, but he will give the Sox a decent utility infielder and replacement for Valentin. He is very good defensively and has good speed(once stole 73 bases in the minors). Losing Valentin and relying on 3 unprove 26 or young middle infielders is a bit risky, but I think it is worth the risk and could pay off in the long run. Losing Wunsch isn't a big lose with Marte and Cotts in the pen and Shields in the rotation. I also don't think Grilli will be anything more than a middle reliever at best.

What is wrong with Marte? He hasn't pitched like he has the past couple of years. He has blown a couple of games this year, and can't even get lefties out at this point. He has lacked control and velocity, and that is a scary combination. Now we need a comeback. s***. This team needs some bullpen help.

Why doesn't Harris run? Relievers sometimes forget about the runner, and if my memory is correct, LeCroy has less than a stellar arm.

The original trade purposal makes no sense. Boston gets away with highway robbery, while neither Seattle or KC improve themselves now or in the future. From a KC standpoint - If they are going to trade Beltran, than they will probably want 2-3 top prospects who could contribute very soon. This would signify that they are giving up on this season, which is unlikely this early in the year. Getting Garcia makes no sense. While KC really needs pitching, Garcia isn't going to add more than Beltran subtracts. Beltran is probably the most complete player in the majors, and trading him essentially straight up for Garcia doesn't improve their team now or in the near future. While DeJesus is a decent prospect, lets not forget that he went 1-23 before being sent back down to the minors, so DeJesus and Garcia isn't better than Beltran. So what benefit does KC get for making this trade? From a Seattle standpoint - They are giving up their most consistant starter, and a pretty good prospect for a struggling pitcher who was recently sent to the minors, and an outfielder that doesn't provide that much offense. Besides, Seattle has a full outfield with Ibanez, Ichiro, and Winn, so Damon doesn't have a position to play, and Damon isn't significantly better than any of those three. This move doesn't improve them this year or in the future, so why would they make this trade? From a Boston standpoint - You are drooling at the possibility of this move. Beltran is a significant improvement over Damon, and you keep him from going to the Yankees. You only have to give up a struggling pitcher who isn't even on your major league roster. This trade clearly benefits the Red Sox, while ripping off the other teams involved. From a Sox standpoint - If Seattle wants some offensive improvement, than I am sure that the Sox will throw CLee their way. CLee will give them much needed power, which is needed more than Damon's OBP and slap hittiing(considering that they already have two similar guys in Winn and Ichiro as someone already mentioned). The Sox would probably throw in Rauch to give them a decent young arm to replace Garcia with. The Sox get a much needed top of the rotation veteran pitcher, and can call up Reed to take over in LF and provide a solid top of the order hitter. CLee and Rauch would be a much better package than Damon and Kim IMO. Red and White, your purposal is a little more fair, but Seattle gets the raw end of the deal. What benefit does Seattle get from trading their top pitcher(this season) for a guy without a position to play and who doesn't provide the offensive boost that they needs? That would be a tempting deal for KC. Two very good starters for Beltran would be interesting and might be a net improvement, especially if DeJesus can perform better than his 1-23 performance earlier in the year. This would make it a much tougher decision for Boston. It is a no-brainer to give up a struggling pitcher like Kim to get a significant improvement in CF with Beltran, but to give up an important starter like Lowe would bring up the following question, does the improvement that Beltran provides over Damon outweight the decrease that would occur from putting Kim back in the rotation for Kim?

Michael Morse is really off to a great start and playing under the radar. The Sox aren't very deep in the middle infield and it's nice to see him playing well. He could get the first shot after Valentin if the Sox don't add another SS. He is still young(only 22), is decent defensively, and has some nice power potential at 6'5. He is hitting a robust .349/4/7 in a good pitchers park in Birmingham.

I am not sold on Young yet. I realize that he is one of those "potential/tool" guys who could put it all together, but I want to see some production on the field before I jump on his bandwagon. He put up some decent numbers in rookie ball, but those stats can be deceiving. A red flag goes up when I see his high strikeout totals as well. I hope for the best with him, and if he does develop, than he will add even more depth to an extreme deap outfield crop in the minors. I really think they need to get Gray's bat into the lineup. Gonzalez's star is fading fast, and he is preventing Valido from getting consistant PT at SS(his natural position), and keeping Gray from getting consistant AB's. I think they should DH Gray a little as well(giving Morris a little less PT). I think it is important to give prospects that actually have a chance to contribute at the major league level, at some point, a chance to play consistantly, especially over career minor leaguers. Its good to see Schnurstein getting off to a good start. He came out of the gates on fire in is 1st season at rookie ball, but struggled a little last year and a lot of people jumped off his bandwagon. This is a big year for him to establish himself as a top prospect. Its good to see McCarthy pitching well. His SO:BB ratios are simple amazing. I do agree that he could be a little more wild. Maybe throw a few more pitches out of the strikezone when he gets ahead in the count(although I have never seen him pitch so I could be way off). The 2 Castros are establishing themselves as two of the better relief prospects in the Sox system. Its good to see that he is pitching well.

When does Andy Gonzalez lose prospect status? The reason that I ask is because I really thing Antoin Gray has a chance to be a very good player, but right now he is stuck behind Valido and Gonzalez. Valido is the Sox top middle infield prospect and should be getting everyday playing time, but Gonzalez is repeating low A ball after a terrible year last year and is looking terrible. I think Gray should get some more starts, because every where this kid has gone he has hit. If you want an interesting comparison, than check out Gray's stats in 2002 at Southern University and compare them to teammate Richie Weeks(considered by many to be the top middle infield prospect in baseball). Its remarkable how similar they are, yet Weeks is the one that got all the attention(2nd overall pick in 2003) compared to Gray(25th round pick in 2003). On a side note, can anyone tell me a little about Thomas Brice? I know a little about him(mostly his stats the past couple of years). He seems like a solid line drive hitter with decent plate disipline, but I have noticed that he has already hit 2 HR's this year. What is his status as a prospect? Is his still a marginal prospect that needs a big year to even be considered a solid prospect?

I might have gone a little overboard there, but cwsox is an old stubborn man who is unwilling to see things any other way than his own. If you asked 100 experts which is a better stat to judge a how good/effective a pitcher is(wins or ERA), I guarantee that the overwhelming majority, if not every single one of them would say ERA. Win and loses are a team stat that a pitcher has very little control over, yet cwsox things its a better indication of how good a pitcher is.

I agree with Brando on this one. Rowand has at least proven to be an average major leaguer(as his .742 career OPS and solid D would indicate). Wright on the other hand has proven nothing. His career ERA of 5.55 is down right terrible any way that you slice it. In regards to the guy that compared Wells to Wright, you need to understand that for every Wells that develops into a decent starter there are 10 other youngsters with decent potential that never make it, so don't pretend that Wells is the norm and compare every struggling youngster to him. Furthermore, Wells numbers were quite a bit better that Wright's numbers when they were both 25, so thats really not a good comparison. I think you have to accept the fact that not all of the Sox young pitchers are going to develop into solid major league pitchers.