whitesox61382

To begin with, the Sox aren't going to get Maddux, so you can lay that pipedream to rest. The Sox are probably a few mil over budget as we speak, so signing a starter for 6-7M/yr isn't going to happen. Secondly, please stay away from KW with that trade purposal for Pena. That is a terrible trade for the Sox. When you are as thin as the Sox pitching wise, you don't trade away 3 pitchers with a good shot to make the team(and a good outfield prospect) for a 1B you could get for 2-3M on the FA market(Travis Lee). Inge is terrible. Think of Olivo with much less offense(if thats possible). I like Pena, but you are giving up way too much. No thanks. Brando, for the last time it won't take more than Konerko to get Perez. I wish that I had bookmarked the article that clearly stated that the Dodgers were close to doing that deal straight up. Furthermore, there was a recent article in one of the Chicago papers that suggested that KW might want MORE then just Perez for Konerko. So please quit with this Konerko and a top prospect(or 2) stuff. Why give up more then you have to? If the Sox do what you suggest, than they are setting themselves up for a Ritchie part II.

So what if Rowand doesn't produce the typical type of power you expect from a corner outfielder. For years the Sox have filled their lineup with one-dimensional power hitters at almost every position, and look where it has gotten them. If the Sox trade Maggs, get Winn as part of the deal, and move Rowand to RF, than they will still have 5 guys who could easily hit 20+ HR's(Thomas, Konerko, Valentin, Crede, Lee) and 2 guys that will probably give you double digit HR's(Rowand, Winn). Is that not enough power in the lineup? Furthermore, Winn provides the Sox with a top calibur leadoff hitter, which is harder to find than a power hitting middle of the order hitter IMO. Not only that, but he improves the team D(Winn-CF/Rowand-RF over Rowand-CF/Maggs-RF) and gives them more team speed(Winn is a 20+ SB threat). These are aspects that could be improved. Winn is definately a downgrade offensively when compared to Maggs, but he is an underrated player IMO. Furthermore, the Sox get a solid middle of the rotation starter and one of the top pitching prospects in baseball who is ready to contribute at the major league level. Not only does this trade improve the Sox now, but also in the future.

Why would you put Winn in right if he has a weak arm? You want your strongest outfield arm in right because the majority of the throws are to 2B, 3B, and home. Winn is much better suited for CF with his arm. A strong arm is down on the list of things needed to play CF. Winn would play CF if the Sox traded for him, with Rowand moving to his natural position of RF(where his above average arm is used to full abilitiy).

Unfortunately it appears that IU's streak of going to the Tourny(2nd longest to the U of A I believe) is going to come to an end with this crushing lose(unless they get lucky and win the Big 10 Tourny). Some of the IU faithful are getting impatient with Mike Davis, and he better hope that this incoming class is as good as advertised or he could be out as IU's coach in the next couple of years.

I picked Andrews too. Some of it was Spurrier's system, but the Washington O-line is still below average(especially the guards), and I am a firm believer that the key to a good offense is a good O-line. Washington's O-line not only did a poor job protecting Ramsey, but they were poor run blockers as well(some of that is the system and lack of talent at RB as well). The Washington D was the strength of the team, so they shouldn't draft Harris. Besides, 5th overall is much higher then most experts project Harris to go. Most feel that he is a mid-1st round pick. I am still sticking to my Andrews pick, but if it comes down to Winslow and Harris, I would have to take Winslow. Other names for the rest of the 1st round. Here is a pretty good website that accurately ranks players and should give you a good idea of what players to include for future picks. http://scout.theinsiders.com/a.z?s=211&p=9...&yr=2004&nid=83

Sorry about the length. I personally hate reading very long post, and so I really hate when my post get long. I started out by mentioning a few points about the possible trade, but then Brando and I brought in Konerko's ability, Perez's ability, Wright/Pacheco, the Ritchie trade, the Sox/Dodgers financial situtation, ect. We have tied in about 10 different topics to this trade purposal, and I applogize for the length of my post.

baggio, no offense, but read my post a little more carefully. "These rankings are a little flawed because most of the pitchers that are qualified are solid starters. For example, if a pitcher is really struggling, than he will probably lose his his starting role and won't have the IP to qualify." I clearly stated that the ranking were a little flawed, but it gives you a decent idea of where Perez ranks among quality pitchers. Perez's overall numbers weren't that bad last year. The point that I am trying to make is that they weren't excellent like Baggs and Brando are trying to argue. "1. 810 OPS is an EVERY-DAY MLB average according to ESPN.....and, needless to say, that number is diluted by such "light-hitting" positions such as C, SS, 2B and CF." This is an extremely flawed stat. I understand that it includes on the everyday player, which they don't define(my guess is that it is players that qualified with enough AB's), but like my Perez example it is flawed. I took the actual average OPS in the AL last year and it fell in the .745-.755 range. That is a much more accurate numbers, because it is the average of every player in the AL. You keep pointing out Konerko's flaws and I can't understand why. Thats not the point that I am trying to agrue. I am not going to disagree that Konerko is a streaky player, that I don't know what to expect from him, that he is terrible slow, that his D is average at best, and that he has a big contract that overpays him for his production. I am not a big fan of Konerko and would be more then willing to trade him, especially for a decent starter like Perez. I would also keep him if the Dodgers asking price becomes too high. What I am arguing is that Konerko, Pacheco, and Wright is too much for Perez, who is just as inconsistant as Konerko, who has yet to prove himself, who no one knows what to expect from him, who is overpaid based on his 2003 numbers. Perez for Konerko is a realitively fair deal. Maybe the Sox could throw in a marginal position prospect like Yan, for example, to sweeten the deal, but I don't want to include any major league ready pitchers considering thats the Sox major weakness and the reason that they are trading for Perez in the 1st place. "--Depending on how smart they are with their existing contracts, Dodgers will have anywhere from 25 to 40+ Mill of SPENDABLE cash in 2004." I am sorry, but do you have a link to support this? You keep tossing these numbers out, yet I haven't seen one article that says the Dodgers will spend that kind of money this year. I have read an article that said the new owner wants to make a big splash. I have also read an article that the new owner spent almost all his money to buy the team and won't be spending that much this year. I have yet to see an article that confirms that the Dodgers are certain to spend 25-40M this year, yet you keep throwing it out there. I have a feeling that you are throwing numbers out of your ass. My point was that the Dodgers currently have a payroll close to the 100M mark and a team that will most likely finish .500, so they are desperate to make a move to add a big bat(if they have the money). The Dodgers can't afford to be a .500 team with a payroll around 100M. "Baltimore blinked and got themsleves 3 sluggers for under 25 Mill. They didn't give up Greg Millers or Ed Jacksons, either." Will you quit comparing the O's to the Dodgers? There is absolutely no relavance between the two. The O's went out and bought 3 of the top offensive FA in the game, but there are no more Tejada, Palmerio, or Lopez left on the FA market. The best offensive players still on the market are guys like Simon, Mondesi, and TLee. If the Dodgers want to spend their money are mid-teir offensive FA that won't make much of a difference, than go for it. The difference between the O's and the Dodgers is that the O's had nice options that they could get without giving up top prospects, but the Dodgers don't have that option. If they want a difference maker on offense like Tejada, Palmerio, or Lopez, than they will most likely have to part with one of their top prospects, which they have been reluctant to do. I have talked with Dodger fans, and they said they would rather keep all their prospects and continue to build for the future. With no difference makers on the FA market, and the Dodgers not wanting to give up a top prospect, that leaves them with few options to find a difference maker on offense, which is why they have turned their attention to Konerko. IF the Dodgers have so many option, than why are they talking with the Sox again after the incident earlier this offseason between KW and Evans? "while the Tribe lost half their offense in Burks and Vizquel. Outside of Gerut their youngsters are unimpressive. They were second to last in offense in AL WITH Burks last year. Like Tigers, they BLOW" You need to keep up on the news. Vizquel is still an Indian and is completely healthy. Secondly, please tell me that you realized that Burks had a grand total of 198 AB's last year, and didn't do much anyways .263/6/28 .779 OPS. Losing Burks is a minimal lose to say the least. You forgot to mention Bradley who quitely put together a great season. The Tribe have one of the top minor league systems in baseball, and a majority of their young hitters will get better with time. They will be no worse then last year, and in all likelyhood they will be better. "Odds are Mauer won't touch Pirzinski in his first year. Anaheim and Baltimore will be much better than in 2003. As should the Sox. That may push the Twins down to as low as 8-10th spots. Out of 14 teams. Below average." I love how you have the ability to predict the future. I think it is fair to say that the decrease from Mauer to Pierzynski will be negated by the increase from Stewart over Kielty/Mohr. The Twins will probably have a similar offense, and they always find a way to score more runs then their talent would suggest. The Twins will still have an average offense next year whether you want to admit it or not. "--Pacheco is simply not as talented as Kip, nor is he ML-ready. Fairly expendable." I wasn't comparing Pacheco to KWells, I was comparing him to Fogg. Josh Fogg was a 24 year old pitcher coming off a season in which he posted a 4.81 ERA in AAA(114.2 IP), and wasn't highly thought of. Most scouts thought that he was a middle reliever at best. I think Pacheco and Fogg are very similar in that way. Furthermore, according to Rex, Pacheco has a great arm with much more upside then Fogg. I will repeat that I am not that high on Pacheco, but I don't think you throw in a prospect with a plus arm, coming off a dominating season, and who could possible contribute this year. "--Ritchie could only dream of Perez's upside. And his downside turned out to be much worse than Perez's could ever be." Sure. I remember how all the Sox fans were bragging about Ritchie's mid-90's fastball with his nasty slider when he arrived. I also remember them talking about who the AL Central was filled with weak offenses that Ritchie would dominate. I also remember them talking about how he would dominate because very few of the hitters in the AL had seen him before, and that the pitcher has the advantage when they change leagues. I remember them talking about how Ritchie's sub-par season was merely a fluke and that he would regain his previous years form. Sound fimiliar. I am not necessarily suggesting that Perez is another Ritchie, but pointing out the remarkable similarities between the two. History serves one obvious purpose, and that purpose is to learn from previous mistakes. It seems to me that you are viewing all of Perez's positive attributes and ignoring the negative ones. While I would prefer Perez over Konerko, I am simple pointing out both sides of the arguement. These are things that GM's think about before making a trade. They look at the positives and negatives equally. They review the best and worst case scenerios. "You mentioned something about a marginal prospect.....Well, as far as Dodgers are concerned, for most of his career, 25yo Pacheco has been just that. Marginal. They are certainly unwilling to do the deal straight up." My arguement is that I would rather give up a marginal position player prospects like a Yan instead of a Pacheco AND Wright. "Now we're comparing Wright to Hawkins and Gagne.... And you accuse ME of stretching it? Geebus..." I clearly admitted that these were extreme examples, however, they do serve a purpose. Twins fans were basing Hawkins similar to Sox fans are basing Wright. I am sure that the majority of them would have traded Hawkins for a bag of peanuts if offered. How does Hawkins not serve as a relivant example? He put up worse numbers then Wright as a starter, only to develop into a dominating reliever. I am not necessarily suggesting that Wright will have the same luck, but I am showing that it isn't all that uncommon for a struggling starter to develop into a quality reliever. In fact, most of the relievers in the majors were once starters, and a good majority of them were moved to the pen because of their struggles as a starter. My point is that it is too early to give up on Wright. Give him a chance as a reliever and you might be surprised. He has the stuff to be a very good reliever and did well in a small sample size last year. It goes back to my point that the Sox are extremely thin when it comes to pitching, and that they need to keep all the decent arms that they have.

I just wanted to add that I think it is too early to give up on Wright and Pacheco. Even when Wright was dominating at AA most scouts thought that his future was as a set-up guy or a closer. These are a couple of extreme examples and aren't the norm, but they do show the posibilities. For example, Hawkins and Gange. Hawkins 95' 6 GS 27 IP 8.67 ERA 96' 6 GS 26.1 IP 8.20 ERA 97' 20 GS 103.1 IP 5.84 ERA 98' 33 GS 190.1 IP 5.25 ERA 99' 33 GS 174. 1 IP 6.66 ERA His numbers as a starter were worse then Wright, and the last 2 years he was one of the most dominating right handed relievers in the game. Gagne 99' 5 GS 30 IP 2.10 ERA 00' 19 GS 101.1 IP 5.15 ERA 01' 24 GS 151.2 IP 4.75 ERA His numbers as a starter were similar to Wright's numbers in 2002, and now he might be the most dominating relievers baseball has ever seen. These are extreme examples, but it isn't that uncommon for a struggling starter to develop into a decent reliever. Wright did post a solid 3.24 ERA in 16.2 IP as a reliever last year. I just think it is too early to give up on him. Give him a chance as a reliever and hopefully he can add a fewer MPH to his fastball and use his top breaking ball. I am not that high on Pacheco(I wasn't high on Fogg either) because of his age and suspect numbers before last year. He could be a 1 year wonder like Malone, Ulacia, and Rauch(I hope that I am wrong on all 4). I have only seen Pacheco pitch once and don't have a good opinion on his stuff, however, Rex seems to think highly of his arm. I will get a better idea of his stuff this spring in Tucson. This year could be a make or break year for Pacheco, but I don't want him to make it with some other team like Fogg. I point to a weak upper minor league system and questionable pitching staff as a reason to keep the above 2. Plus we need to learn from our past mistakes(the Ritchie trade).

"and 6.85 or round it up to 7 k's per 9 innings pitched is not good for a starter???..thats excellent...how can you say thats just average???...mark buehrle's k/9 ip = 4.66 , bartolo colon's = 6.43" His K/9 ranked 20th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. That is slightly above average. "1.28 whip is above average for a starting pitcher...mark buehrle's whip last year was 1.35 ..colon's whip last year was 1.19...perez fals right in the middle between buehrle and colon..." His WHIP ranked 24th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. That is right around average. "BBA..dont have the numbers but just looking at hits per ip perez would be better than buehrle but not as good as colon" Perez ranked 33rd in BAA out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. Is that average? His OPS against also ranked 33rd out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. Is that average? His K/BB ranked 10th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. This is the only stat that is excellent. These rankings are a little flawed because most of the pitchers that are qualified are solid starters. For example, if a pitcher is really struggling, than he will probably lose his his starting role and won't have the IP to qualify. His overall numbers aren't bad with all things considered, however, I won't go as far as to call them excellent. Furthermore, I think you need to take into consideration that "roughly" half of his starts are in the best pitchers park in baseball, which skew his numbers to some degree. In all honesty I really don't know what to expect from Perez. If I had to guess, I would say that he would put up similar numbers as last year, if he moved to the AL and a better hitters park. If he stays in LA, than he will probably see an improvement in his numbers(probably a low 4-high 3 ERA). I would do a Perez for Konerko trade in a second, and I would even consider throwing in a marginal position prospect, but anything more is pushing it. "840 OPS is around AVERAGE for a 1B" The .850 OPS that Konerko averaged the past 4 years would rank 3rd among the 12 AL 1B that qualified. I would say that is a little above average. "Another crucial distinction is this: 115 Mil dollared Dodgers can "swallow" underperforming Perez." They could keep an underperforming with their 115M payroll, but unless they add a couple of solid offensive players they will be heading for another .500 season. I really do think that makes them just as desperate as the Dodgers. I would argee that a .500 record with a 115M payroll would be more disappoint, and without an offensive addition thats were they are heading. "OF COURSE KW is gonna say he is not desperate to dump payroll. Duh. Can you imagine the kind of negotiating HOLE it would put him in if he implied otherwise?" Everyone keeps saying that the Sox are over budget, but do we truely know the actual budget? It doesn't appear that KW/JR are trying hard to move payroll, and I am really starting to believe that they could stick with the approxiamately 64M payroll that they currently have. "It's TWO months away from Opening Day." Yes, but history has shown that very few big trades happen in the couple of months before Opening Day. Thats not to say that they have many options or that they won't pull a trade. "Dodgers won't deal their best prospects for overpaid Ordonez, but they might for, say, an fairly underpaid Huff or Giles or Edmonds or....literally a few DOZEN similar options." For Huff maybe, but the other 2 guys have big contracts similar to Ordonez, so I doubt they would give up either for Giles or Edmonds. Besides, I really don't think Giles is going anywhere and Tampa Bay recently said that Huff is staying. I really think you are overexegerating the options that LA have. They might have a few more options then the Sox, but I don't think every team is banging down their down to make a trade with them. "What are you talking about? They lost Brown. Counting on Wilson Alvarez coming anywhere close to 2.45 ERA is setting yourself up for a huge dissapointment. Edwin Jackson is f***ing rook. They may actually end up in a worse situation pitching wise than then the Sox if they don't get the breaks. Don't make them out to be the A's of NLW this season." You are contradicting yourself. You made the arguement that they are DESPERATE to trade Perez. They do have a surplus. Who knows about Alverez? Jackson has to be thrown into the fire at some point. They also have Dreifort coming back to fight for a rotation spot. They do have more depth than most teams. They will still be in good shape even without Perez. Certainly better then the Sox current condition. "Home-away splits always baffled me." I don't read too much into them unless a player plays in a obvious hitter/pitcher park. I also don't read too much into them unless their is a trend. I am simple pointing that there is a red flag with his away splits. I really don't know what it is, but Chevez is almost always rated as the best pitchers park year in and year out. I think the ball just doesn't travel well there. "Tigers are absolutely dreadful." They will be better next year. Not only did they add decent players like IRod, White, Guillen, and Vina, but you can probably expect youngsters like Pena, Monroe, and Munson to get better. They will still be below average, but they will be nowhere as bad as last year. "Indians are worse than last year and they were really bad." How did you come to this conclusion? In all likelyhood they will probably be a little better since a majority of their players were youngsters that will probably get better with experience. They still scored 21 more runs they San Diego. "Twins are also worse-- and they were below-average in 2003." Why will they be worse? They lose Pierzynski, but I think Mauer will do a decent job as a rookie. They also have Stewart for a full season, so thats an improvement. I think they will have a similar offense in 2004. Below average? They did rank 6th in the AL(10th in the majors) in runs scored. Thats slightly above average in my book, and ranks ahead of every NL West except Colorado. "Royals were a hair above average in 2003, but remember how much of that had to so with their .305 team BA with RISP.....I also think either Sweeney or Gonzo will striggle with injuries, so expect the Royals to be above aberage offensively but nowhere near the powerhouse" KC ranked 4th in the AL(7th in the majors) in runs scored. Thats certainly better then slightly above average, and they should be similar at the worst. They also ranked ahead of every in the NL West except Colorado, which was right above them at 6th overall in runs scored(thanks to Coors). I really think you underestimate the Al Central offenses, and as you can see they are very similar to the NL West offenses(probably because of the DH instead of the pitcher), so I really don't think that will have much of a difference. He could have the advantage because no one has seen him, but the numbers show that in general an NL pitchers ERA goes up roughly .25-.30 when they move to the AL. Like I said above, I think he would put up similar numbers to 2003 if he moved to the AL and to a better hitters park. "Most of these prospects will be busts anyway." Your right, but the question is which 1-2 will develop into decent pitchers? The Sox also can't afford to make another trade like the Ritchie trade. Doesn't your purposal look similar to the Ritchie deal? The Sox trading for a pitcher coming off a sub-par season with only one good year, and in return the Sox are trading a struggling youngster in the majors(Wright-KWells?), an older prospect that isn't that highly thought of(Pacheco-Fogg?), and a struggling 1B whos trade value is at an alltime low(you don't sell stocks when they reach an alltime low). Your purposal has Ritchie part 2 written all over it, and the Sox can't afford to make another mistake like that.

"Even in Konerko's best year, he was never worth nearly 9 Mill a year. Last year he was so awful, he should have paid the SOX money." I talk about consistancy, and some how you bring up money. Its hard to hold a conversation with someone who gets off the topic at hand. Konerko might not be worth the money he is being paid, but how is that relivant to the topic of consistancy? Was Perez's numbers last year worth 5M? No. So neither player is producing much bang for their buck, but at least Konerko has shown the consistancy to earn close to 8M/yr. The same can't be said for Perez. One good year doesn't make a player proven, especially when that one good year is surrounded by bad/inconsistant years before and after. "We've been over this. Dodgers DO have an upper hand here. Their payroll is projected to be upward of 120 Mill. They are NOT desperate to pay 14 Mill for Magglio and they sure as hell are not wild about paying Mr. Hip 17 over 2. Please understand this SIMPLEST of concepts and move on." Do you understand some of the thing you post? How does the fact that the Dodger's might(far from proven considering there have been multiple articles stating that the new ownership doesn't have much money to spend) have some payroll flexibility give them the upper hand, especially when you consider that the Sox don't HAVE to get rid of payroll? KW clearly said that he was content with the team they had(that included the payroll), so that negates the so called upper hand that you believe the Dodgers have. If the Dodgers don't give KW/the Sox what they deem fair for Maggs/Konerko/Thomas, than KW will say no and keep what they have. How is that the upper hand? You are really grasping at straws with that arguement. "Worst comes the worst, Dodgers will pay 1 Milll to Randel Simon and he will do nothing but hit with RO/RISP (as he's done in the last 3 years, including pennant race and playoffs) for them. No hip problem. No mental issues. Not as big a base-clogger, either.....And they keep Odalis Perez." Thats fine. Let them do that. You aren't understanding that the Sox don't need to make a deal(for personal or financial reasons). They are simple trying to make a trade that will make both teams better. No team has the upper hand at this point. Both have big weaknesses with the other team have a surplus of the other teams weakness. They are perfect trading partners, but neither team is desperate. "Considering that, unlike the Sox, they actually have MONEY and TWO stud prospects in Miller and Jackson to dangle in front of teams....they can go pull an Oriole and improve their line-up in a SECOND." Then why haven't they made a move? If they have so many options, than they should have easily made a move or 2. There are too many holes in your logic. 1 point that I think you are missing is that the Dodgers don't want to give up either of their too pitching prospects, and thats why this Konerko deal works out perfectly. They have maybe 1 or 2 legit options besides players from the Sox, but they haven't been able to pull off a deal yet, so don't pretend that the Dodgers have every team lining up to do a deal with them. "Desperations, like analogies, aren't born equal. Dodgers are mildly desperate to get rid of Perez while we are SUPER desperate (care to take a poll?) to get rid of Kong." Don't put your words into other peoples mouths. Its not about being desperate to move certain players as much as it is desperation to strength weaknesses(Dodgers- offense and Sox- starting pitching). I am perfectly happy with the Sox keeping Konerko, and have little doubt that he will rebound to some extent. The Sox have a surplus of power hitting corner outfield/1B/DH type players, so they can afford to trade one, especially if they can fill a weakness(starting pitching). The Dodgers have a surplus of starters, so they can afford to trade one to fill their weakness(the worst offense in the majors). Its not about desperation to move specific players. "And whatever benefits he drew from pitching at Ravine will be more than erased by the fact that he will be going up against Tiger-Twin-Indian-Royal line-ups." I disagree. Chevez is by far the best pitchers park in baseball. It is nearly impossible to accurately meassure the affect that it has, but I think you are underestimating its impact with the above statement. Let me start out by pointing out that both the Twins and Royals had above average offenses last year. Let me also point out that the NL West doesn't have a lot of power offenses(Arizona - 10th and San Diego - 14th), so the difference between lineups in the AL Central and NL West isn't that drastic(especially when you consider that one league has the DH and one has the pitcher). Furthermore, you have to take into consideration the league change which usually results in an increase of ERA by .25-.30 on average. The lineup arguement is a poor excuse on your behalf to ignore the drastic affect that Chevez had on Perez's stats. "Pacheco I always liked, but to the rest of the world he's a 25yo AA'er pitching in a pitcher's park. Even pitcher-challenged Rockies didn't care about him. While is coming off an injury-plagued season and his 6.00+ ERA in limited innings isn't gonna blow anyone away." I am not a big fan of Pacheco and don't think he will be a very good pitcher, however, the Sox have a very weak upper minor league system and a questionable pitching staff, so trading one of the few prospects in the upper minors that put together an above average year is a mistake even if Pacheco never makes it. It wasn't that the Rockies didn't care about him as much as it was that he was inconsistant and wasn't considered a top prospect. Many guys like Pacheco(not that highly thought of when traded) have turned into decent major leaguers and bite the team that traded them in the butt. I really think that Wright can excel in the pen. In a small sample size he posted an ERA close to 3.00 when moved to the pen. Once again, with the weakness of the upper minors and a questionable pitching staff the Sox can't afford to trade away one of the few guys that has experience and has had MILD sucess in the majors. Sorry for the length.

Brando, what are you thinking? There was a report that the Dodgers were close to doing a Perez for Konerko deal straight up. While Pacheco and Wright aren't future stars the Sox can't afford to give up major league ready pitchers, especially if they don't have too. You(and Baggs) need to take another look at Perez's peripherals, because they were far from excellent. If Perez's peripherals last year were excellent(IYO), than half the starters in the majors had excellent peripherals last year. Lets take a look at his peripherals. 6.85 K/9 - average, but certainly not excellent(6.27 in 02') 3.07 K/BB - this is the only stat that is excellent(4.08 in 02') .267 BA - average at best(.226 in 02') .753 OPS - average at best(.605 in 02') 1.36 HR/9 - below average and very high in a great pitchers park(.85 in 02') 1.28 WHIP - average, but not great(1.01 in 02') I don't know what peripherals that you are looking at, but those are average at best. Furthermore, as you can see there was a significant decrease across the board from 2002 to 2003(excpet for K/9). Whats more disturbing is Perez's numbers away from the best pitchers park in baseball. away 03: 5.59 ERA .297 BA 1.40 HR/9 .836 OPS 1.46 WHIP What is to stop him from putting up numbers similar to his away splits if he moved to a much better hitters park like Comiskey? Not to mention the fact that pitchers generally have an ERA of about .25-.30 higher in the AL compared to the NL. How are you so sure that he is going to return back to his 2002 form? before 2002 199 IP 5.38 ERA 2002 222.1 IP 3.00 ERA 2003 185.1 IP 4.52 ERA He is just as big of a question mark as Konerko, and probably more so considering that Konerko was pretty consistant for 4 straight years. Furthermore, as much as the Sox need another middle of the rotation starter, the Dodgers need a big bat just as much, so don't pretend that the Dodgers have the upper hand because the Sox are more desperate. Remember that the Dodgers had the worst offense in the majors last year, and their only significant addition is Encarnacion. Both teams are equally desperate. Perez is also going to get a nice chunk of change next year at 5M, and is eligible for arbitration next year(will most likely get an increase). Anything more then Konerko for Perez straight up is a bad deal for the Sox. The fact is, based on his away splits, Perez might not be any better then Schoeneweis, so why give up Konerko for something the Sox already have? It would be nice to get rid of Konerko's contract, but that doesn't mean the Sox have to throw in other players.

Notre Dame finished the recruiting year strong and found themselves in the top 25.

I unfortunately think that Wright is going pro after this year. His major knock is that he is only 6'2, which is small for a SG in the NBA. Its not likely that he is going to grow taller if he stays another year. This year he is the go to guy, and has gotten the attention and hype. He is also putting up decent numbers. Scouts can tell that this guy can flat out shoot the ball, which will help his draft statis. I think his stock is as high as it is going to be so he SHOULD probably go after this year. If he stays for next year he probably won't get as many shots and won't be the focus(with a bunch of instant impact freshman coming in) on offense, which will probably hurt his stock. He isn't as certain as Davis when it comes to leaving(wasn't included in the most recent mock draft), but I have a feeling that he will leave. WSoxShuf, I am not suggesting that they won't be good because they aren't ranked in the top 25. There are some top 25 recruits that struggle, and some recruits that aren't highly thought of that turn into stars, but the rankings are usually fairly accurate. You mentioned Duke getting of those top recruits, and end up contradicting yourself. Duke is a perfect example of a team that regularly gets top 25 recruits and almost always is a contender for the championship, despite the fact that a majority of them leave early. They keep retooling with talented top recruit freshman that step in from day 1 and contribute. SuperSteve, if I were an odds maker I would say that Davis has about a 10% chance of returning to MSU next year. He hasn't had a good season??? He is averaging 16.4 PTS, 6.4 REB, .533 FG%, .789 FT% and has become the obvious go to guy. He has improved across the board, including more then double his PTS from last year. Whats even more impressive is that he is averaging over 16 PTS and 6 REB in under 30 minutes a game. If he thought about leaving after his freshman year, than what is going to stop him from leaving now that he has improved across the board? I recently read an article that said he is all but gone after this year, and in the recent mock draft he was included. As whitesoxfan99 points out, a lot of the draft is based on potential. At a legit 6'10 250 lb he has the size that scouts drool over. He also has the inside and outside game that scouts love in big man. He has a ton of potential, is a big man, and is putting up some pretty impressive numbers. If you put your bias to the side you will be able to read the writing on the wall. Davis will not be wearing green and white next year. If they get a PG? That is a huge IF. They are bring in 1 guard this year, but he is suppose to be more of a SG rather then a PG. With Davis gone and no true PG, MSU will probably be middle of the pack next year. My original Final 4 was UConn, Texas, Florida, and Missouri. It turns out that my Final 4 list could as serve as a list of the most disappointing teams in college basketball. My new Final 4(subject to change) is: UConn - The most talented team(on paper) in college basketball Stanford - These guys just win, however they will be 1 game short of an undefeated season Duke - Very talented, but if Reddick goes cold so does Duke Wake Forest - They have the 3 key ingredients to get there: a great PG(Paul), a dominating low post threat(Williams), and a good sharp shooter(Gray) National Champs: UConn

Who cares that Simen is coming off of surgury? To me that sounds like a pathetic excuse by you to justify Simen staying another year. I pay attention to the fact that he is putting up pretty impressive numbers; 15.5 PTS, 9.0 REB, .503 FG%, and .806 FT%, but the most impressive stat is probably his 6'9 255 lb frame. I know that quality big man are always in demand by the NBA, and the most recent mock draft I saw did include him. So don't be so sure that Simen is going to return, because the odds aren't in your favor. Padgett will most likely stay, but there were rumors that he thought about entering the draft out of high school, and he might be one of those guys that thinks he is better then he really is. Langford is also a threat to leave early. He has become the team leader and is putting up some impressive numbers across the board; 16.8 PTS, 4.6 REB, 3.0 AST, .507 FG%, .736 FT%, .387 3PT%. If Simen and Langford leave, than KU won't even sniff the top 25. It appears that you need to pay more attention to your favorite team and need to quit reviewing things with your Jayhawk glasses on. 3 top 40 recruits? I have yet to see Jackson ranked in the top 50 yet alone the top 40. Robinson and Kaun are boardline top 40 prospects(depending on which ranking you go by), and neither are in the top 30 in any ranking that I have seen. KU has a good class coming in, but it is a boardline top 10 class. We will see how well Self recruits in the upcoming years, but I think you are in for a little bit of a letdown. Are you that KU fan that said Wright had commited to KU about a month ago? If so, than you lost some credibility with that false rumor. Take it from someone who has seen Wright play multiple times(I live and went to HF for 1 year). He is one of the most overrated recruits in the 2005 class. He has good size and is a great athlete, but he couldn't hit the ocean from the beach. The guy isn't a good shooter and doesn't have the upper body strength to be a dominating low post presence at the college level. He is still one of the better high school players in the game, but I think his stock will fall the next couple of years. We will have to wait and see.

By the way, who is AJ Price? IU has a recruit by the name of AJ Ratliff, but no AJ Price.

IU with probably get 4 out of their 5 recruits(Josh Smith going pro), however, like I mentioned before they will probably sign another top 100 big man to replace Smith, so they will still have one of the top 5 classes and maybe the #1 class. MSU will almost certainly lose Davis. I have little doubt of that. Hill and Torbert might think about leaving early, but that would be a terrible idea for either. MSU will have the same problems they have had this year. Little depth up front and no true PG, which is why I think they will be a little below the top 3 of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Speaking of leaving early. KU could lose a couple of players early Graves and Nash are solid contributes and will be missed. You also have to worry about Simen, Langford, and possible even Padgett leaving early. I don't think KU will be that strong next year. I also think that Self will struggle recruiting without a hotbed like Illinois to get recruits from. One thing that I will agree on is that the Big Ten as a whole will be much better next year.

You do make a valid point about Wisconsin. They will only lose 1 major contributor to graduation. As long as Harris doesn't go pro you can certainly make the arguement that they are the favorites. A lot of it depends on the impact that the recruiting class has for IU. I am basing my opinion on the relatively strong core of players that IU returns(assuming Wright stays) and the top recruiting class = the favorites for the Big Ten. You can certainly make arguements for Wisconsin, MSU, and Illinois(who also doesn't have a senior) being the favorite as well. I have little doubt that the Big Ten will rebound though. I didn't realize how young most of these teams are. The majority of the top players in the Big Ten this year are returning next year(if they don't go pro).

At this point I highly doubt that Josh Smith steps foot in Bloomington. His stock is skyrocketing right now at Oak Hill, and the most recent mock draft that I saw had him going 3rd behind Howard and Okafor. If(thats a huge and unlikely if) he does play for IU next year, than they will almost certainly be the favorites in the Big Ten. Most scouts compare him to CAnthony when they talk about his game, size, and possible impact at the college level. Even if he doesn't go to Bloomington, the Hoosiers still have a top 10 class with 4 other recruits ranked in the top 100. Furthermore, one of their recruits(James Hardy) is planning on taking a football scholly, so that frees up a schoolly(2 if Smith goes pro) and Davis has said that he will most likely sign at least 1 more recruit. The odds on favorite is top 30 prospect Tello Palacios, who is a 6'7 230 lb PF and probably fits IU's needs better than Smith(although I would rather have Smith). IU is supposely the favorites to land Palacios considering that the other 3 schools that he lists don't have a schoolly available(although that could change if someone goes pro). So if they get Palacios and lose Smith, than they will still have either the #1 or #2 class in country depending on who you ask. They are also still recruiting a kid by the name of Rothbart, who is a 7'0 200 lb SF/C and his stock is skyrocketing(recently found himself ranked in the top 100). He is a European born kid with a great outside game and good fundamentals(like most European born players). He said that he is down to either IU or Arizona. They are also after a JC Center(6'10 220 lb) by the name of Pettway, who has come out of nowhere. Now he is being recruited by college BB powerhouses like Florida, Maryland, NC, and IU. There is also a very slim chance that they could steal top 15 recruit Randolph "baby Duncan" Morris, although thats not likely, and he might go pro anyways. With all that said, Davis just said on a radio show today, that another big man is going to commit to IU within the next 2 weeks(most likely one of the above mentioned guys). So even though Smith will probably go pro, IU will still have a top 5 class(at the worst) when it is all said and done. Besides the top recruiting class, IU will still have Wright(I think he will go pro, but he wasn't included in the most recent mock draft), Strickland, Perry, Wilmont, Kline, and Ewing who all played major minutes this year. Their only two(major) loses are Moye and Leach. IU will have much more size next year, which has been their major weakness. They will have Kline and Ewing and probably 2 other big man(White for sure). They are also adding 2 wing players in Vaden and Hardy with good size 6'5 and 6'6 respectively. I still think IU will be the favorites even if Smith goes pro(assuming they add another top 100 big man which is likely), especially if Wright stays. Don't be so confident that everyone is going to return for MSU. Every mock draft I have seen includes Davis, and one scout said that he is all but guaranteed to leave. If MSU loses Davis, than they will probably only be a middle of the pack Big Ten team with no other proven big man or true PG.

As a fellow IU fan, that was a crushing lose. You need to win the games on your home court. It depressing to see IU blow yet another big lead by not scoring a basket in the final 10 minutes. Give some credit to the Illinois D, but IU deserves most of the blame. This was a game that they lead throughout, and should have killed Illinois with the way they played. Illinois still isn't a lock for the Tourny. IU really hurt there chances and will probably have to win the majority of their games to make the Tourny. This just isn't IU's year, but with next years recruiting class, IU might be the early favorites for next year, especially if Wright stays.

Lopez is a good choice. I have brought him up a couple of times as a sleeper prospect. Other names that people don't talk about that much/aren't that highly ranked(yet). Brandon Bounds - Is a little old and will need to move through the system faster, but his power is hard too ignore(.326, 9 HR, 5 3B, 20 2B, 279 AB's, at advance rookie ball). Clinton King - Part of last years draft class; he put up a solid year after a very slow start in rookie ball. Doesn't get much attention with other outfield prospects like Reed, Borchard, and Sweeney ahead of him. Coming out of college, he could advance through the system pretty quick. Ricardo Nanita - Came out of nowhere to put up some impressive numbers. He has been mentioned by many other posters so he isn't that big of a sleeper. Ryan Rodriguez - Has a great arm from the left side, and could be a sleeper if healthy next year. Tim Tisch - A little on the old side, but he is a long lefty with a decent arm. Fabio Castro - Put up a great year last year, and put himself on the prospect map. Heath Phillips - A young lefty with great control. Julio Castro - The "other" Castro who quitely put up a good year. He is a reliever so he doesn't get much attention, but he put up some pretty impressive numbers. B.J. LaMura - I have never seen him pitch, but from what I have read, he has some of the best raw stuff in the system. Todd Deininger - Pretty solid numbers, and flying under the radar. Casey Rogowski - I have been listing players that put up pretty good numbers, but this is a guy that struggled and could rebound. I have always been a big fan of Rogowski, and while he doesn't have great raw tools, he does do everything well at 1B. Dennis Ulacia - Had a great year 2 years ago, but has fallen off some since then. He is still relatively young and has good control from the lefty side. He could be another rebound canidate. Andy Gonzalez - While we are on the possible rebound players, I think it is fair to mention Gonzalez. After a sub-par year, next year could be a make or break year for Gonzalez. Gary Majewski - He doesn't get much attention, but has quitely put together some solid years and could be a future set up man, possible closer. Ryan Hawkins - Doesn't get much attention, but he has an outside chance of making the Sox with his versitility.

There is nothing wrong with a little optimism, but it is clear that your bias has blocked you better judgement. Why should MSU be in the Tourny? Because they have played a tough schedule? Is that reason enough to put an averge team in the Tourny? Are you suggesting that any team that plays a tough schedule(and loses all their games against tough opponents) and has no quality wins should be in the Tourny? Who has MSU beat? They haven't beat one team that will probably be in the Tourny. Please give me a reason why MSU SHOULD be in the Tourny(and please stop with this tough schedule BS). I have showed you multiple reasons why they shouldn't be in the Tourny, and you have yet to show me one good reason why they should be in the Toury besides your obvious bias. Your best hope is that some of the commitee are diehard MSU fans like yourself, because thats the only way MSU is getting in at this point. No need to get mad at me because you can't accept the truth. Take off your MSU glasses and view things like the rest of the world does.

Why would Anaheim do this deal? Besides the Sox need another starter. Washburn is the key to for the Sox. Some of you guys do bring up an interesting point when you mention subing Percivil for Erstad. I like Percivil more then Erstad from a talent standpoint, plus Percivil only has one more year left on his contract compared to Erstad who has 3. My guess is that some team(most likely the Yankees) would have to take Koch. With the money saved, the Sox could then sign TLee to replace Konerko. I like TLee a lot more then Erstad, and he would probably only cost 3M/yr tops. Here would be the trade: Anaheim gets: Konerko 1B(Sox) 8.5M Valentin 3B(Sox) 5M Heredia LHP(NYY) 600K Prospect (NYY) Sox get: Washburn LHP(Ana) 5.45M Percivil RHP(Ana) 7.5M Prospect (NYY) Yankees get: Glaus 3B(Ana) 9M Koch RHP(Sox) 6.3M The only problem with this deal is that Anaheim is stuck with both Konerko and Erstad at 1B. They would probably want to get rid of Erstad, but would probably have to package something with him to get rid of his contract. Why each team does this deal? Anaheim They do this deal because it saves them about 8M. They get a decent stopgap at 3B until their top prospect is ready in 2005. They get an upgrade offensively at 1B. They get a lefty reliever, which they need. They also get a solid prospect from the Yankees. They do give up a lot, but they get fair value talent wise + some financial flexibility. Sox They do this deal because it saves them about 7M. They can then turn around and spend about 2-3M to sign TLee to replace Konerko, and add a lefty bat to the middle of the order. They get a solid starting pitcher, which they desperately need. They get a proven closer that could turn the pen into a strength. They get a decent prospect from the Yankees. They also get a ton of financial flexibility next year without Konerko's contract and with Percivil's contract coming off the books. Yankees They get a big time 3B to replace Boone. They also get a solid right handed set up guy. They do add about 15M in payroll, but I think thats a small price for GS to pay to drasticly improve his team. They don't give up much besides a solid lefty reliever and a couple of prospects(they also take on a lot of payroll). I think this trade would improve all 3 teams. It gives all 3 teams what they need, including financial flexibility for the Sox and Angels. The only hold up that I see is that the Angels would probably want someone to take Erstad. Besides that I think it is a fair trade for all 3 teams.

How can you honestly say that? Saying that you would rather have Rauch/Cotts instead of Washburn has to be one of the funniest things I have seen in a while. The more that I think about, the more I like this trade. The obvious improvement that Washburn would bring to the rotation in desperate need of another quality starter alone makes this a good deal. I am not a big Erstad fan, especially with his remaining contract, however, I would be willing to take him if it means Washburn is coming with him. Offensively the team would take a slight hit, although a healthy Erstad should be able to duplicate Konerko's OPS last year. The reason I really like this trade(besides the addition of Washburn) is because of the other areas that it improves. I think the Sox would have Erstad play 1B(his natural position) because it will probably keep him healthier, and Lee has never played 1B. The Sox infield D would become one of the tops in the game. Erstad is a GG calibur 1B, Harris is above average defensively at 2B, Uribe is suppose to be a GG calibur SS, and Crede is already one of the top defensive 3B in the game. It would be nice to see the Sox with an above average defensive team, and I am sure all the groundball pitchers on the Sox staff would love that defensive infield. As someone else mentioned, the team speed would be drasticly improved. Olivo has a chance to be a double digit SB threat if given the shot, Erstad has stolen 20+ bags 5 times, Harris is a legit 30+ SB threat if he gets on base at a decent rate, Uribe has double digit potential, Crede is one of the few slow guys, Lee has stolen double digit bags 3 times, Rowand has above average speed and double digit potential, Maggs has stolen double digit bags 3 times, and Thomas is the other slow guy. For once the Sox would have a solid pitching staff, great team D, and great team speed to go with a solid offense that still includes(Thomas, Lee, Maggs, and Crede). This would be a great trade for the Sox. The one problem as most of you guys have pointed out, is that this is probably nothing more then speculation on Rogers behalf. While the trade isn't too far fetched I have a hard time understanding why Anaheim would do. They are giving up a solid #2/3 starter, an AS calibur 3B, and a so-so outfielder/1B and only getting Konerko, Valentin, and a prospect back in return. It also seems like the Yankees are getting the best part of the deal. 2 marginal prospects for an AS calibur 3B. Anaheim does need some help from the left side of the pen, and my guess is that the Yankees(possible the Sox) would have to throw in a proven lefty reliever to help sweeten the deal for the Angels.

My Wildcats are hard to figure out. One game they look like the best team in the country, and the next they look like they don't even belong in the Tourny. It seems that they have defensive lapses and get lazy at times on the defensive end, which is unfortunate because they have some good 1 on 1 defenders and great athletism. I will say this, the U of A is one of the most exciting teams to watch(they were the highest scoring team in the country), especially with the athletism of guys like Adams and Iguodala. Arizona has the talent to win it all(IMO), especially if they go on a run in which they play like the best team in the country. They could also get knocked out in the 1st round if they play flat(like last night). On a side note, if you watched the game, than you have to give props to the little guy Robinson on the Huskies side. He poured in 31, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, and 5 steals. Not only that, but the 5'8 Robinson threw down a nasty dunk that helped spark the second half run. I am jealous. At 6'2(closer to 6'1) the only thing that I can throw down is a volleyball.

I am not a huge fan of RPI. I know that the commitee thinks pretty highly of it, but I find it extremely flawed. I don't think MSU is the 48th best team in the country(according to the RPI). Who have the beaten that is even in the top 50, 60, 70(in RPI)? How can a team be 48th without a quality win? MSU isn't that good. It is that simple. Furthermore, now more then ever, the commitee is starting to include more mid-major teams. They believe that the #2-3 team in a mid-major conference is better then the #7-8 team in a major conference, especially a conference like the Big 10 which isn't very good this year. Not only that, but an RPI ranking(one of the few things that might save MSU) of 48 is boarderline. RPI also takes into account strength of schedule(which is the only reason why MSU is even close to 48th), so the commitee will look to other things. Maybe the strength of the conference, quality wins, road wins, ect. I just don't think MSU deserves to be in the Tourny, and at this point I don't think they will get in. They have a tough remaining schedule that could help or hurt them. If the lose the games that they are suppose to(games that they are the underdog), than they won't have the record to get into the Tourny. However, if they win 2-3 of those tough games in which they are an underdog it will add some quality wins to their resume. My point is that some MSU fans think they have a good shot of getting in. I am presenting the other side of the arguement and from a non-bias perspective(neither like nor dislike MSU) I think the odds are against MSU.