rockren

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 06:58 PM) I don't like Fuentes long-term. Fuentes' ceiling is average SU man and his floor is a situational lefty. We already have two canidates to be situational lefties in Thornton and Logan. As far as Ian Stewart goes, I don't see us trading for a prospect 3Bagger when we have Crede/Fields. IF we deal Garland, we better get a capable "make the rotation" starting arm in return.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) Zambrano got $18 mill a year; Garland would get $15 mill. And if he got $50 mill after putting up a sub 4 ERA season, I'd probably s*** my pants. I also don't think Garland has reservations about staying somewhere where he's comfortable; not sure why, probably against just eye of the beholder. He just doesn't seem to have a different personality than Buehrle. Garland did it before with us and signed that 3yr/29 million dollar deal. Could he have gotten a longer more lucrative deal on the open market? Of course. We did just win the World Series, but I think Garland is a lot like MB in that regard.

The Bulls can't trade for Kobe until after Dec 15th. If the Bulls were to pull of any kind of deal for Kobe, because of salary requirements, they'd have to add one of the following three players: Big Ben, Kirk or Noc. Forget the Bulls dealing Big Ben (nor would the Lakers trade for him) and forget the Bulls dealing Hinrich. Noc would be the main salary piece that gets dealt and due to the Bulls just re-signing him this last off-season, they can't deal him until Dec 15th due to the CBA. The Bulls are about to re-sign Lou Deng to a Hinrich like deal. Ben Gordon on the other hand...nowhere near a new deal with the Bulls as of now. Kobe makes 19.5 million this year. Gordon and Noc add up to a little over 12 million. Another player would have to be thrown in to meet the salary requirements and to appease the Lakers. That other player would probably be Tyrus Thomas. Tyrus makes over 3 million this year. After Dec 15, Gordon/Noc/Tyrus for Kobe would work under the CBA and be accepted by the league. It's just a matter if the Bulls would want to be that thin at the 4 while getting Kobe. The Lakers would probably be willing to throw in Turiaf as a filler and give the Bulls another big body that wouldn't effect the trade as far as the CBA goes. So the deal would stand as this: Nocioni, Gordon and Thomas for Bryant and Turiaf. Would you do this deal? There is no doubt in my mind that the Lakers would do this with Kobe still pounding the doors down to leave. Would Pax? Stay tuned. If I were Pax? I'd say no to Kobe. We can do great things with the players we already have. I hope we keep them together.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) You don't think it won't be a huge deal in 2009 when A-Rod starts chasing 600? or in 2012 when he chases 714? BINGO! As much as I hate to say it...Boras is right. ARod, even at 30mil/year will make his team money. Now 10 yrs/300 mil? I don't know how anyone could own up to owing a guy 90 million dollars (or more depending on the type of deal) to a guy on the other side of 40. 5 yrs/150 mil? He'd be worth it to the right team. That team is not us if anyone is wondering what my opinion on that matter is. (If you were, thanks)

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 10:59 AM) That bring up a good question. Do the phillies stay longer in the playoffs with a healthy Freddy Garcia? Poor Freddy. As excited as I was to get him and has proud of his '05 playoff performance for us...I'll always be thankful he was with our club. However, with that said, I was disappointed with Fred's overall body of work with us. He wasn't what I'd thought he'd be. His loss in velocity and his inability/carelessness to hold runners...I'm glad we shipped him to Philly and was happy with what we got for him (still am).

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 10:57 AM) If he goes to the NL, puts up 200 innings, sub 4 ERA, and 15 wins, he's making $75-90 mill over 5-6 years. That's what Zambrano got. If Garland put up those kind of numbers for a team in the NL next year (which I think is totally possible) they could resign him in season for around 5 yr/50mil IMO. Garland is the type of guy who'd rather re-sign into a situation he likes rather than just test the market where he could make more money. That's totally up to the eye of the beholder however.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) You let me know when Owens has Hall's power, even in a down year for Hall. Plus Owens doesn't play SS and wasn't very good prior 2007 like Hall. Garland is no prize -- $12M for 1 or 2 draft picks plus 200 league average innings if the shoulder knot doesn't reappear. Hall for Garland would be fine by me. Don't get me wrong- I really want Hall at Short for us. However if we were to deal Garland, we'd have to get some kind of arm back IMO. You should be able to buy low on Hall right now. With Hall's down year and the Crew having no use for him and his contract... one of our OF prospects and a failed BP arm with pep should get it done.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) And you still have to give up players and then a contract extension for Garland, whereas you only have to give up a contract for Silva. I'm still not following here. Silva is going to command a 5 yr deal in FA. My guess is a deal around 5 yr/50mil (See Ted Lilly and Gil Meche) Would you rather commit 50 mil to Silva or 12mil to Garland? Even if it costs you a few prospects? Why not test a guy out for a year and see if he's right for your organization. If Garland were to go to the NL and have a sub 4 ERA over 200 innings and 15 wins...a GM could better justify giving a guy 50 million after he's already shown he can do it for your club.

QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) Who do you think these arms are? I agree with you that it is a package KW would settle for. I would push the buttons on any teams that have a surplus of what we need. IE Arizona, NYM, Tampa, etc. I really don't know. Owings, Nippert and Pena from the DBacks would be a best case scenario in my opinion. Owings would make the rotation while Nippert would fight for the 5th spot or end up in long relief. Pena just seems to be a name that keeps popping up on this board and would be a great middle relief guy for us. Would we get this? Probably not. But if KW plans to deal Garland...I hope he's at least shooting for something like this.

QUOTE(Fantl916 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) If you give me Adam Jones in a package for Garland I would do a cartwheel. However, I agree that the guy KW will most likely pursue would be Morrow, which isn't likely either. That said, Bill Bavasi isnt the best GM out there, and loves to trade for solid vets. Maybe we can package Garland with other parts they can use and get some young talent including a couple out of the Clement, Baletein, Jones, Morrow group. If we trade Garland...it'll be for a deal similar to last year that Garland almost went for. Multiple somewhat promising young arms that the particular organization has already given up on.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:50 PM) Why on earth would you use wins? Garland has started for the equivalent of 7 years in the majors, whereas Silva has started for 4; that's probably the most misleading and useless stat you could throw out. If you are going to use wins - which is not a good way to determine how good a pitcher is - atleast use average wins per year. You certainly could say it's a deceiving statistic,but meaningless? Yeah...tell that to the Yankees when they signed Pavano years ago to a monster FA deal. We'll just agree to disagree on this one (again). However, the reason I like Garland so much more is the fact that he's a more proven commodity (the Wins/IP are objective stats). As far as who the better pitcher is? Another objective fact is that Garland has an arsenal of pitches. Whether Garland wants to throw hard all game and sit at around 94 or take something off his fastball and have it move around while he adds in his change-up and sinker...Garland is a much more complete pitcher. Silva is a sinker-baller. That's it. Would teams rather sign a long term contract for around 10 mil a year for Silva? Or would they get Garland for a year for 12 mil and give a few prospects? If you put it that way...you could go either way. But as far as who the better pitcher is? Not even close.

QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:12 PM) Deal Weeks, or Hall, or trade Ben Sheets unreliable ass. Do not trade Prince or Braun. This is what I think they should do. Spare me the "BUT SHEETS IS AN ACE" argument. You're not an ace if you're never around to pitch in September. Some could argue that Zambrano threw a few big games in September while Sheets sat out was the difference in the NL Central Race. For as injury prone as Sheets is, the Crew could still get an awful lot in return for him. Besides, Sheets contract is up in two years anyway...the Crew would be smart to pedal him for a bag of young arms.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) After the season Hall had and given the salary status of those 3 guys, I wouldn't much like that deal either. Don't let last season fool you...Hall took his struggles on D to the plate. He was taken in and out of the lineup quite a bit. Hall's floor is WAY better than any FA out there and would be a big time upgrade over Uribe. The Crew would do that deal because they'd be happy to be rid of Hall's contract and Aardsma/Anderson would be small contracts on their big league roster. (Anderson would beat out NIX IMO). If you don't want to jump on...your loss.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) So, what you're saying is they could use a solid defensive player who doesn't necessarily put up good numbers with the bat. Say, like a Uribe. Uribe for Braun it is. Seriously though, that's one team that might actually have a need for the guy if we tried to package him with something. Did somebody really say we could trade for Braun? Braun will probably hit 40 bombs a year at Miller and make around 300k for the next 4 years doing it.... I'm sure the Crew would move him for NOTHING WE HAVE.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) If Bill Hall is the return, Jon Garland better not be the price. I was thinking B. Anderson and Aardsma for Hall.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) If Bill Hall is the return, Jon Garland better not be the price. Christ no.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:39 AM) If we're talking Garland, the return must be able to play SS. That is my only demand. I've joined your planet palehouse... Join my Bill Hall bandwagon.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) Johan Santana > Carlos Silva > Jon Garland perhaps Silva is the same pitcher as Garland statistically, but you give up no players for him, and it just costs money; Garland costs players and money. Silva over Garland? Garland has won a career 92 games and Silva has won 55. They're the same age and they're styles are pretty similar if you ask me. What alarms me about Silva is that hitters have hit .300 against him for his career. I understand that Silva pitching on turf while being a ground pitcher has killed him in that area...I still like Garland a lot more. Add in the fact that the Cell/at times horrible Sox Defense through the years...and I'd say the playing fields have been equal for the pitchers. They're the same age and Garland is a much much more proven commodity. I've seen both in person multiple times and there is no comparison. I'd take Garland in a walk.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) I have been saying this for while now. Bill Hall is a SS playing out of position and would probably love to be moved somewhere where he can go back to playing SS. I would love Hall to be the SS for the sox. Even if he comes closer to his 2007 line than 2006 hes still a huge upgrade over Uribe. Uribe is the least patient, least intelligent, and worst hitter in the sox lineup period. Replacing him with someone that has shown he can do .270 with 35 Hrs and actually have an OBP above .330 would be huge. You live with Hall's defense (which isn't that bad) knowing that he removed the worst hitter in your lineup and added a true ballplayer to your 1-9. As a bonus Hall is signed to a very KW like contract, he will make the following: 08:$4.8M, 09:$6.8M, 10:$8.4M, 11:$9.25M club option ($0.5M buyout). Alright KW get some aBrewin' Bill Hall would just make way too much sense for us. There is NOTHING in FA and I don't want Uribe back.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 03:12 AM) This I do disagree with, even if just slightly. Gio and DLS, given one more year's worth of development, could very easily be worth more than Kendrick (if it isn't already). I understand the exaggeration, and if you don't consider those two, then I honestly imagine you could easily be correct. Oh I certainly would consider those two. Hell, those two together with Konerko for Kendrick the Angels wouldn't do. If you disagree...not a big deal. It just depends on how much you like Faustino/Gio or how much you like Kendrick. Either way, it's silly for us to talk about but we will anyway. I was in Milwaukee when the Indians played the Angels for one of those "Snow Makeup Games" earlier this year. Kendrick went 4-4, showing powers to all fields (3 of those hits were off CC). Kendrick could very easily have 200 hit season for the next 10 years. At 2B? That makes him almost as valuable as any young player in the game.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 12:45 AM) If we package Gavin Floyd, Jerry Owens and Joe Crede, can we get Cole Hamels? And if we throw in Uribe, they'll throw in Rollins. Well, we might have to give them a little money, for Owens' salary. They may as well throw in Ryan Howard to sweeten the deal.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 15, 2007 -> 11:43 PM) He's that good of a pure hitter. Last guy I said that about was Maggs after watching him for a season in Chicago. Of course I always thought he would win one in Chicago. For what it's worth, I doubt the Angels would deal Kendrick straight up for Konerko and one of our best prospects. To say that Kendrick will win a batting title isn't exactly putting it out there....that's how good Kendrick is. Buster Olney and Peter Gammons have both predicted Kendrick will win a batting title. As much as I don't care for either Olney or Gammons writings...they're still big time writers. KW could've known ahead of time that he was going to sign MB for 4yr/56 mil and if he was offered Howie straight up for MB...I believe KW would've done that in a heart beat. For anyone to say that we wouldn't deal for Kendrick (the Angels wouldn't deal Kendrick for our entire Farm System) because we have Richar is crazy. I like Richar, but Kendrick is 10 times the player/prospect that Richar is.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) From everything I've heard, the Angels are considered the favorites to land ARod. He'll opt out and I'm glad. This means it'll save the Rangers 21-30 million (since they're still paying a chunk of ARod's deal). Now the Rangers can go after Torre Hunter and prevent KW from signing him to a way over-bloated contract. Hunter lives in Texas and it's been said that he would like to play there and has a good relationship with Tom Hicks. The opting out of ARod might be more relevant to us than we think.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) The whisper since has been, Cashman says that, and Steinbrenner really wants to keep him. Cashman is a tool. He's just a yes man to the Boss. What is he suppose to say, "Yeah he can opt out, no big deal."

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) Torre looks to be all but gone. Posada, Rivera and Pettite are all free agents. They will likely keep Posada but Rivera is reported to be shocked that the Yankees haven't approached him for a new contract. Pettite is likely to go back to Houston or retire with his boy Roger. And then we have A-Rod. Im guessing he opts out of his contract and signs with Boston. IF they do fire Torre....I pray to God they hire Mattingly. Then ARod, Posada and Rivera all leave. I'd love that because I hate Don Mattingly. Why? Because I remember when he was brought in to be the Yankees hitting coach and he acted like he had a tough job to do. I could've coached up a lineup like that...how many all-stars would it take?