DBAHO

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 11:12 AM) I think its a solid move by eac hteams. Of course this all depends on what the Jays can do with there bevy of 1st/3rd baseman. However Glaus is a force in the middle of a lineup. He can hit for 40 hrs if he stays healthy over the full course of a season and the Jays could use a big bat. At the same time Batista goes back to Az. He's a solid pitcher and can close if necessary and Hudson is a good infielder. I don't watch enough of Hudson, but I remember quite a few people always raving about Orlando. I never understood it but I always figured thats probably because I don't watch or pay much any attention to the Jays. I know Josh Byrnes for a while was trying to attach Luis Gonzalez to any Troy Glaus deal, but they become unfeasible. Still I think he's done a pretty solid job here, and in the off-season as well. Their payroll had to come down from $67M to about $60M, and trading Glaus and Vazquez will have helped that immensely. I'd expect Craig Counsell to start at SS and Hudson at 2B, which is a pretty solid middle infield combo. Still Hudson only had a .315 OBP in 2005 which probably highlights how Willie Harris was undervalued here. That definitely needs to improve if he wants to stick around in the desert. Miguel Batista's role will be interesting though. Right now the D-Backs have a rotation of Webb, Halsey, Ortiz, Vargas and El Duque. Batista could be used as a starter to replace Halsey or Vargas if they don't perform in spring training, or he could be used as a set-up man or even a closer depending on what they want to do with "Big Papa" Jose Valverde. But at least their bullpen should be better then what it was.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 10:32 AM) Insane. They can only start 3 of them (1B, 3B, DH). I could have seen the Twins trying to trade for Koskie to get him back but they just signed Tony Batista. Pretty crazy situation. All of them either play 3B, 1B, or both. Remember with Batista his contract isn't guaranteed if they release him before opening day, so they could still actually trade for Koskie if they wished.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 02:14 PM) And somehow, the Hawks are beating the Wings 2-0. Khabbi's woken his ass up and has 28 saves. And if it wasn't for Mark Bell, this team would be SCREWED offensively right now. Patrick Sharp seems to be fitting in alright as the 2nd line center though, 4 points in 7 games, and a +1 tonight.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 02:21 PM) I wouldn't pay him the money based on 1 season nor would I pay burnett. Only stupid teams would do that. We didn't win with a big payroll, or a great farm system, we won by getting good players for good value and being right. You see I think neal Cotts is a good pitcher with some better upside. I would have considered him a middle tier guy when we got him. He was not there top guy . If we could get a couple of these middle tier guys that is what I expect. Ok so is St. Louis a stupid team for almost signing A.J Burnett to a 4 year $40M deal? Burnett has better stuff than Garland, I'll give him that. But A.J has pitched in a pitcher's park for his entire career. In 2005, he had away splits of 7-8 with a 3.80 ERA. Garland had better home and away splits in 2005 then that. Remember when we got Neal Cotts and he first came up with the big team? He didn't produce right away, and like I've said before 3/4'ers of Soxtalk wanted him out. When he acquired him was he a top prospect? No, he wasn't. Look at what Oakland got for Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder last season. Sure Atlanta were able to re-sign Hudson, and Mulder still had an option year on his contract in 2006, but the Mulder deal especially showed what teams will offer for good starting pitching if they become available. The issue for a team trading for Jon Garland is this, are they gonna be able to lock him up? I said right now, the odds of that are about 20:80, which hurts Garland's value, but if a team like the Angels or Dodgers traded for him, I think Garland's about a 50:50 to re-sign long - term with them because of the homegrown factor.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 02:03 PM) This isn't rumored, but what about sending Garland to Boston for Andy Marte. Ride out Crede for this year, maybe use him for a trade at the deadline, and possibly deal Fields as well. It certainly makes Boston even stiffer competition, but could also make us solid at third for several years to come. I don't really see the point in dealing an excellent starting pitcher for a young third baseman, when we've already got Joe Crede who'll still be under our control for 3 seasons, and Josh Fields who'll start 2006 in Charlotte. That's why we're going after good starting pitching prospects. We can't assume that when Buerhle, Garcia's and Contreras's deals finish up, that they're going to re-sign with us again.

I think St. Louis is wishing Lovie Smith was their coach right now. As for can he take the team all the way, it's hard to say yet. He's never head coached a playoff game before. But the Bears need to keep building through the draft, and fills those weaknesses that have been mentioned in this thread.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 05:28 AM) And this would never happen to the Bears, if TO tried something stupid with the logo, Mike Brown is on his ass in a second. Good to see you can predict the future now.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:43 AM) Don't forget that the guy we acquired to back up Crede could put up better numbers than him (AVG & OBP, not HR's). I didn't.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:34 AM) Houston and both LA teams have some pretty good pen arms, but I'm not sure what could or would be given up. The Dodgers are our best I think, as they do have some quality prospect pitching depth to throw in. Houston's an interesting one. You just think Tim Purpura is going to do something big down there. They missed out on Rondell White, and they could either trade for a big time SP like Jon Garland or trade for an OF like Bobby Abreu. And the Astros do have some good bullpen arms. Chad Qualls and Dan Wheeler would both make excellent fits in our pen.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:34 AM) The only general worry I have is that the bullpen as a whole needs a little more fortification Right now, it looks like the trade market is going to be the way to fixing that, with Jon Garland the main trade bait. The Dodgers and Angels look like the main targets, but Colletti didn't want to part with his stud pitching prospects which will be a problem. But there could be a team out there like Baltimore (Chris Ray), Cincinatti (Ryan Wagner + prospects), Philadelphia (Ryan Madson) that could help us fill that need. If Garland can't be traded, maybe you'd have to look at giving someone inhouse a shot, or dangle Joe Crede if you can find a capable stopgap (Joe Randa) to help fill that need until Josh Fields is ready. We've still got options, and I'm confident KW will make the right decision in the best interests of this ball-club.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:16 AM) They played much like last year's White Sox, get a good start almost every game, play defense, and take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Ok so I'm going to ask you about this question. So far this off-season we've acquired another starting pitcher who'll be under contract for another 3 seasons (and he's thrown 200IP in about 4 out of the last 5 IIRC), a bonafide LH power hitter (if Thome can return), which has been a HUGE weakness on this team for many seasons, an utility player who gives you insurance for Crede and will put up better numbers then Harris or Blum. And we've traded our worst starting pitcher, a lefty reliever who wasn't going to stick around (albeit I think he was a little more valuable then people thought), a DH who stunk in the 2nd half of 2005, and Aaron Rowand where Brian Anderson his replacement will probably put up similar numbers with a little less average than Rowand's 2005 numbers. So have the White Sox abandoned the approach that won them the World Series? I don't think so. They've still got the dominant starting pitching. They've still got their best bullpen pitchers. And if anything, our offense will be improved, especially against righties, which was really a sore spot for many people around here in 2005.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:24 AM) Your spreadsheet is pretty ignorant of the facts. A healthy Jim Thome is going to produce more than a .207 AVG with 7 HR's and 30 RBI's in 2006. That alone completely defeats the purpose of your spreadsheet. It also doesn't factor in what Brian Anderson will do in 2006 in comparison to what Aaron Rowand did in 2005, not that that can be quantified yet. Really the argument on that has been that most people believe Thome and Anderson in 2006 >>> Rowand and Everett in 2005 offensively, and I have no reason to disagree on that.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 05:10 PM) That was hilarious. And yep how many other people thought that? George Teague didn't that's for sure.

Yeah Yawney's gotta take some of the blame no doubt, but I also gotta look at Dale Tallon for signing someone like Martin LaPointe who was terrible in Boston to a 3 year deal, and in this new NHL, he just doesn't fit. For a while the Hawks were actually playing some ok hockey, but they've just gone downhill since that Nashville game. This is on you Kap.

Talking to a couple of people at work today, one who was originally born in Africa (Ghana I think), and the other who's an Aussie. And we were talking about politics, and the Aussie guy said in 2008 it would be Hilary Clinton vs. Condolezza Rice. I respectfully told him about Barrack Obama, and the African guy really hoped he would become the next president. Just thought I'd share that story, that we Aussies, actually do take a little interest in your political situation.

Willie have a good one as I know you will!!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 08:09 PM) Bavasi is all over the place. That started happening ever since he got the M's GM position. As for Arroyo for Reed, if they have to give up Gil Meche to do so (depending on what happens with their rotation), is that even an upgrade?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 08:30 PM) Yep. I don't know what the hell the draft class is talent wise, but regardless I'd think if the Bulls wanted to (and they'll have money) they could use that pick on a player they want or put it in a package for a pretty good player. I'm kind of excited about that. Hopefully the Bulls can muster into the playoffs though. They have really suffered from having one really bad quarter pretty much every game. Plus they seem to make a habit of blowing big leads. Its so frustrating. Blowing an 8 point lead tonight too. This year's draft class is meant to be pretty weak. Here are the top 5 at the moment; 1 - Rudy Gay - SF - Conn 2 - Adam Morrison - SG - Gonzaga 3 - LaMarcus Aldridge - PF - Texas 4 - Andrea Bargani - PF - Italy 5 - Rajon Rondo - PG - Kentucky

So is Flaherty going to catch Time Wakefield now I'm assuming?

I didn't see this posted anywhere, although I'll go ahead and delete it if I do find it;

And some news here from the L.A Times;

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:06 PM) http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5185624 Hmmm, haven't we all been saying this? A California team like the Dodgers or Angels would be willing to give up the most for Garland because they know that they would have a very good chance of re-signing him to a long-term deal (just like KW did with Freddy Garcia). Didn't that get like posted already a while back?

Forget Jeremy Reed for the moment;

This makes sense for both parties;

You think Paul DePodesta wishes he had this type of money to splash around? Probably not good news on the Jon Garland front either;