DBAHO

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 10:47 PM) Ron Villone is on the Marlins. They traded for him at the deadline last season. They've still got guys like Julio Mateo who could be quite useful for us. And I'd love the Aussie Chris Snelling if he could actually stay healthy for more than 2 months.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 10:14 PM) I disagree on Beltre vs Blalock. He had one career yr [in his walk yr-very suspicious] while Blalock had one down yr. IMO, Blalock got homer happy like Pods did. Blalock was talked about being in the same hitting mold as George Brett and Tony Gywnn. Getting in love with the HR, after the 04 ASG, probably has hurt him more than anything. One thing to consider--in 2004 he hit in the #2 hole for Tex. For his career, he has #'s like .285/.355/.500 hitting there in close to 500 ab's. If he can hit in the #2 hole, he has some skills the sox could use Just looking at some more stats here for Blalock vs. Beltre in 2005; They both had RC/G of 4.7. Beltre had about 30-40 less K's then Blalock, and he had a Gross Production Average of .255 compared to Blalock's .239. You can make an argument either way. Because Blalock's got the far better contract, that's probably the way the Sox will head if they want a 3rd baseman.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 09:59 PM) The advantage of trading for Blalock is that he would be locked up to a very modest contract (4-years, $20 million), he's only 25, he's a lefty stick, and he would be moving from one hitter's park to another. It's too bad the Rangers' bullpen sucks so bad that they wouldn't have a decent reliever to throw into the deal. I also wouldn't want a guy like Beltre who had a monster season in 2004, gets a huge contract based on this one great season, and then goes back to putting up mediocre numbers after stricter steroid testing is enacted. I think there's far too much risk involved with Beltre. Some things that you've said there, moving from one hitters park to another, well that isn't a guarantee that he's going to return to his prior numbers, and who knows what Greg Walker will do to him as he goes from one of the best hitting coaches in baseball to one of (well this is what the majority of White Sox fans think) the worst. You've got to remember with Beltre, this was his first season in the AL, and his righty power just isn't suited to Safeco at all. Not advocating trading for him, but if Seattle paid quite a bit of his contract, and he'll have more lefty protection in this lineup, with his excellent fielding as well, I think he'd be a better chance than Blalock to bounce back, but that's JMHO.

Blalock still worries the hell out of me with him Home - Away Splits from this season. The Sox have to look at him and wonder if he's good enough to overcome that. Frankly I'd just stick with Crede, if you could get him under control for another 3 seasons (which I know is a big if). But besides Blalock, there's not a lot of options if you're looking for a 3rd baseman. Adrian Beltre possibly, but Seattle would have to pay some of his contract. Otherwise I'd go for the reliever + quality prospects scenario.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 08:39 PM) Then we should just keep him. If he walks in 06, so be it. Will take the two draft picks and move on. I don't want to see us get fleeced in any deal involving Garland. I still think some team out there is really going to offer a real good deal for Jon Garland. And yeah the Sox have a choice whether to keep him and take the 2 draft picks, or deal him for a real good package of prospects. But you've also got to look at it from the aspect of Brandon McCarthy. B-Mac's ready to be a starter, and no doubt he will so I think if you can upgrade your talent base even more while you've got someone who flat out dominated in the 2nd half, you go for it. And if you can get a solid reliever added to the deal, well that makes it even better.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:45 PM) The Rangers could offer Thomas Diamond and John Danks for Garland. That would be interesting, but Jon Daniels is already getting a reputation for asking for too much in trades. Plus Diamond and Danks didn't exactly do well when they jumped up a level in the minors in 2005.

Here's a crazy thought, Detroit offered Curtis Granderson and Joel Zumaya for Vazquez originally. We'd never trade with them because they're in our division, but if they offered that for Jon Garland would you take it, or would you ask for Justin Verlander to be included instead? Either way, if the Sox are looking for quality SP prospects for Garland, looks like they're setting themselves up for Garcia or Buerhle leaving after 2007. B-Mac would still be under our control if we keep him, and Contreras will probably get about a 2 to 3 year deal (for after 2006) if we can re-sign him.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:19 PM) I thought this part of the column was most interesting: Yeah, it looks like the media is going to try and make it look like the Sox are airing it out with their dirty laundry again with Garland after what happened with Maggs and Lee. And you'd think Jon could show a little loyalty from how the Sox actually stuck by him, but with the current market for FA SP's, it looks like he's going to test it. And that looks like it's going to cost his job with us.

It looks like Jon's pretty much a very good chance to be moved before opening day 2006. But what do you want in return for him, if that's the way Kenny Williams decides to go, which all indications point to. Here are some little pieces to get the ball rolling; So as for two quality pitching prospects, Baltimore has Chris Ray and Hayden Penn, but I'd definitely want more. Los Angeles would definitely be an interesting option, they've got plenty of good young arms in their farm system. The Tejada and Abreu deals have been mentioned quite a few times on here over the past few days already. And Carl Crawford too. But would Jon Garland alone be enough to get those players? Maybe, but probably not (for the first two for sure). What could a team like Cincinatti or Seattle that is desperate for good quality starting pitching be able to offer us?

I tend to think Houston would only move Lidge for a real impact bat like Bobby Abreu. Of course it depends on whether they decide to wait for Clemens in May, or sign a cheaper starter etc. Right now I think Baltimore are probably the best match for Garland. But some other teams that I think are possible trading partners are the Reds, Dodgers and Mariners.

And so it's gonna be competitive for those last 2 spots in the East isn't it. Looks like Miami, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaulkee and whoever wins the Atlantic Division are locks. The final 2 spots I think will come down to Chicago, Orlando, Washington and New Jersey. And I'm actually starting to like our chances, with Grant Hill back. But you know the Nets are probably gonna get their act together sooner rather than later, the Wizards will probably actually start playing defense at some point, and the Bulls have quite a few home games to go thru yet. Should be good to watch.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 07:57 PM) The difference between Mulder and Garland is that Mulder had a reasonable $7.25 million team option for 2006. The Cardinals knew they would have Mulder for at least two years. Whatever team we trade Garland to would only have him for one season before he hits free agency. That lowers Garland's trade value. But the market for starting pitching you could argue has gotten even worse than last off-season. And if a team deals for Jon, that may really offer a big deal to get him locked up, even though it looks like he's headed to FA either way.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Unless he signs with the Sox, his value with the Sox will never be higher. They'll get more for Garland during the offseason than at the trade deadline. I don't disagree with that at all. I mean let's have a look at the Mark Mulder deal from last off-season. Oakland got a good cheap reliever (Kiko Calero), a good young starter (Dan Haren) and a stud young prospect in Daric Barton. KW could take this kind of path if he wanted, but I think we know that isn't going to happen. He's probably going to make another major splash. A Miguel Tejada like splash.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 01:24 PM) If you can get Tejada for Garland, Uribe, and prospect(s), you have to do it. It looks like we will have Garland for only one season and Tejada >>> Uribe. Stop stealing my ideas. I know a lot of people rate Jon Garland very highly, but I still think it's very possible he could regress a little in 2006. He doesn't K batters like our other starters (which at the Cell isn't a good thing), and I just think everyone is expecting him to have another great season, which I think is a little unrealistic. Still his value is at an all time high at the moment, and he could get even better, we'll have to wait and see.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:39 PM) I'm not thrilled with the trade but wasn't Jeremy Reed supposed to be awesome, too. He sucked last year. Ditto Olivo whom I loved as a Sox. Didn't hit for squat. Is this guy supposed to be better than Reed was? Just askin. Reed had major wrist problems, plus he's hitting in one of the worst hitters parks in baseball. Still his defense was better than advertised. I look for him to bounce back, and he could be on his way to Boston for Matt Clement if they can't re-sign Damon. Reed is more of a solid grinder player who hit for a higher average, while Young has more tools, could hit 30HR's and steal quite a few bases, and he'll still take a walk. And Arizona is going to have damn good OF in a few years. In fact they'll have a damn good young nucleus from Stephen Drew, Conor Jackson, Carlos Quentin and Chris Young, if that's the route they decide to take.

If Argentina can get out of their group, I think they can go all the way. Everyone thinks Brazil is more talented, but I think Argentina play better as a team, and they've got so much creative quality anyways from the likes of Carlos Tevez.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:24 PM) And they lose to the Canes! So how'd the Canes get so good Queenie? I don't think anyone really saw that coming this season. Staal and Cole have been a dynamic duo though.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:22 PM) Hopefully Rincon. Rincon got signed to a 2 year deal by the Cardinals.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:03 PM) I'm pretty sure Eischen is still under Nats control. EDIT: Maybe not, I see he has a protected contract yet he's listed as a FA so I'm not sure. He's definitely a guy I'd like to look at if he's available. Ahh my bad, he was signed to a 1 year deal today. So cut him out of the list.

Was just thinkin about Seanez myself. Some team like the Braves may offer him a closer's job though. Still if he wants to win a Championship, we may have a good chance. Other pitchers could include; Giovanni Carrara Felix Rodriguez Jeff Nelson Jim Mecir Joey Eischen So yes not a lot on the FA market as well. KW may have to get creative again.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:05 PM) What bothers me about trading Young is the direction our organization appears to be taking in regards to prospects. Too few are advancing through the system, and those that are traded rarely amount to much. I know people cite failed prospects as proof Williams knows what he's doing; but I rather cite this as proof our minor leagues is putrid. Unless we either hold onto talent, or draft better prospects, we're going to be in trouble in a few years when our players begin demanding higher salaries. You could only really look at Cotts and B-Mac for the past 2 or 3 seasons who have been successes from the Sox Farm System. I wouldn't exactly say our minor league system is putrid at all. In fact, I think before this off-season we would have beeen a borderline top 10 organization is prospects. But losing 2 of your top 3 in Gio and Chris Young is going to hurt that significantly. Hopefully Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez are worth it is all we're going to say. KW's always been the old GM school of thought. If someone like Terry Ryan was in charge, I think you'd probably find quite a few more prospects etc. still on this team and possibly contributing.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:02 PM) I thought the Mariners never wanted Borchard? I seem to remember that they wanted Olivo and either Reed or Crede? I did a quick Google Search and I found this from one of Cheat's old blog posts;

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:01 PM) i thought it was crede or reed... not borchard or reed Yeah some people thought that, and others had the view that Seattle could have had Borchard but KW wanted to keep him, but then IIRC quite a few people here said that Seattle never asked for Borchard. But that's a whole nutha story.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:57 PM) I wish we would have sent the Diamondbacks Anderson instead if they would have taken him over Young. But keep in mind, KW loves Anderson. Yeah I do too. And seriously, Arizona would be interested in BA, he plays a great CF defensively, and Josh Byrnes really wanted to improve the up the middle defense, plus he went to university in Arizona, so there's the homegrown factor as well. We could be talking about this for the next few weeks on this subject alone, like we did on the Jeremy Reed instead of Joe Borchard, when we traded for Freddy Garcia. Seriously.

That's great news Steff. Hopefully the worst has come and gone, and there are no more complications for the little guy. We all send our best wishes as usual.