Flash Tizzle

I don't want any pitching prospect traded this offseason. I don't care who's the player we'd receive in return. It's absolutely ridiculous to trade starting pitchers with the intention of stocking up on pitching prospects only to ship them off for a positional player. Seriously, talk about a shortsighted move. We're unwilling to sign pitchers to long term deals and rarely develop pitchers within our system. Yet, when we FINALLY have several quality pitching prospects we're going to trade them for Baldelli? Idiotic. Now where are left when Buehrle leaves? If it takes two pitching prospects, I'd guess Gonzalez or Danks would be included. That's one less lefty we have to compensate for Buehlre or any of the other starters when they inevitably depart.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) I would love to see the Sox get Lastings and Humber for Buehrle. Considering what's at stake in 2007 if Buehrle is delt, Pelfrey's inclusion in any trade should be mandatory. Minaya doesn't want to trade him, Williams should forget about it and enter next season with our veterans remaining. Let them deal with Beane.

Soon he'll be with Tookie.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Is there ANYTHING to suggest that the White Sox are actively attempting to pick up Roger Clemens? I mean, it's all well and good for you guys to say, "I'd love to have Roger," or "It's dependent on picking up Clemens," I'm suggesting if management feels trading Buehrle is necessary, it should be because of two reasons: someone drastically overpays and Clemens is signed. These are merely my conditions for dealing him.

I believe trading Buehrle will be entirely dependent upon Minaya's willingness to depart with Pelfrey. Another, which no one has mentioned within this thread, is Roger Clemens. Atleast how I perceive it. Williams trades Buehrle, I don't believe many fans will attach themselves to the organization's philosophy of refusing to extend a pitcher's contract beyond three years. This is inevitable; but as the McCarthy deal has shown, Williams is willing to endure fan backlash. To offset such an onslaught of criticism, he absolutely HAS to sign Roger Clemens. I don't care that nearly everyone thinks it's remote, even if Buehrle nets a tremendous package (though I have doubts about Williams accomplishing this), Clemens should be signed for a 1yr deal.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 11:11 PM) Maybe we can send you to Venezuela for a year to go scout then. Hey, why not? Being a Latin American scout for the White Sox is equal to a paid vacation. No one's doing any work down there far as I can tell

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) This offseason is a huge indictment of the Sox scouting and minor league system. They've weakened the team in 2007 (and beyond in the case of McCarthy) to bring in a level of talent that should already have been in the system. So perhaps now we can all quit complimenting this "safe" draft philosophy. Williams finally realizes this cycle of trading prospects for proven veterans no longer applies to the current market. We need production from within, and what we currently had prior to the recent flux of trades wouldn't have been enough for the Royals. New approaches to sustaining success are necessary. Maybe he'll finally recognize the areas of land which exist south of Mexico, as well. Lord knows we've ignored it for over a decade.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) Right now my thoughts on Buehrle, is kind of like how KW treated the B-Mac situation. He shouldn't be traded, BUT, if someone comes in with an offer (e.g Reyes + the Cards stud OF spect) that is too good to turn down, then you take that deal. And that deal I've speculated is kind of like the Freddy Garcia trade where the contract expires after this season, and we 2 premium young talents in return. And if you do a deal like that, we've saved something like $25-30M this off-season. And put the bulk of that to try and sign Roger Clemens. Think of a rotation with; Clemens Contreras Garland Vazquez Reyes Not only does it improve your chances of winning this season, but you set yourself up better for the future I think. But this is pretty much a dream scenario in signing Clemens, but at least the Sox should try and explore the possibility. Eh, right now even I'm a little hesitant at the idea of trading another starter. Such a package for Buehrle must be unbelievable. We're talking Humber AND Pelfrey. Reyes doesn't do it for me. I wouldn't have minded traded Buehrle previously if McCarthy remained on the team. As of now, we're more dependent on his innings over anything else. What worries me about Clemens is first, how the American League will handle him, and second, if he'll be willing to pitch more often. Roger Clemens puts on our uniform, he's not playing his little games. 30 starts, 20-25 million. His ass pitches in cold weather, on the road, in a dome, wherever we say.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 09:41 PM) It might be a little out of the late 1990s, but am I the only one who thinks Eyes Wide Shut to be one of the worst pieces of crap ever? Actually, I enjoyed it. Reminded me of one of the 90's most underappreciated horror films, "The Ninth Gate." I'm partial to movies which establish an unsettling atmosphere for viewers. Even if the story is utter nonsense, I enjoy the feeling of dread or mystery which develops around a character. I believe 'Eyes Wide Shut' successfully created such a setting. One major problem I had was the ending. It casted doubt over the entire film. Almost made it appear as a joke. Remove that from my memory I would have enjoyed it furthur.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) 2 words....trade deadline We're not going to receive anything for him. These last two seasons have shown teams aren't willing to give up legitimate talent for someone entering the second half of their contract year. Especially if whichever team isn't confident they'll resign him long-term. Another concept is one I expressed on numerous occasions last offseason. Much depends on the record of our ballclub come July. If Buehrle is pitching poorly, but we're five games ahead, does Williams risk trading him? If we were to receive anything of value it would have to be because Buehrle rebounded from last seasons dreadful second half. Dealing pitchers before the season is one thing, it's quite another midseason when a ballclub is anything but 10+ games out of a playoff spot.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) Floyd didn't flourish in the minors either. His AAA ERA is over 5. Over his minor league career his K/9 is around 7. That's nowhere close to how well McCarthy performed. Floyd's status as a prospect is mostly due to being a high draft pick, having a nice curve and being big guy. He supposedly doesn't have the 93-94 MPH fastball he had when drafted; the PHI papers say it's down to 90. I'd rather see Haegar start than Floyd, Haeger at least showed some ability to pitch in the big leagues last season and did well at AAA. It may be harsh, but looking at what Floyd has done in the majors and minors, calling him a bust isn't over the top IMO. I don't expect anything out of Floyd for these exact reasons. I suppose it's easier for people to suggest "Cooper will fix him" rather than assessing his body of work; minor and major league statistics. What will it say for Williams and his scouting crew to spend a tremendous amount of time identifying Floyd as a target, only to have him fail? People haven't addressed this possibility yet. I've noticed members claim he'll be a surprise next season without nothing more than a "hunch," so it's only fair to express my 'hunch.' I'm sure if Floyd fails we'll see the following repeated -- "Garcia was in his walk year anyways, so it doesn't hurt so much watching Floyd fail. He didn't pan out, but altleast there's Gonzalez!" Ultimately, I believe Giovanni will be the key component of this deal. Never really considered Floyd anything other than an additional body.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 10:49 PM) I'm not referring to Danks or Masset at all. Let's not enter this ridiculous set of Steff-semenatics where we argue the true meanings of people posts for four pages. Complete waste of time. What you use to interpret McCarthy's future can just as easily be used towards the prospects we acquired from Texas. Sure, you didn't mention them directly, but what you essentially used as an argument also applies to what we received. QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 10:58 PM) I don't think that's his point. In B-mac, Danks and Massett -- you have 3 highly touted, extremely talented pitchers who haven't really proven anything at the major league level. But many are acting like Brandon is proven. He's not, but even his limited amount of innings is more than Danks or Masset. McCarthy has shown an ability to pitch as a starter once his changeup is harnessed.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) People are doing a ridiculous amount of defending a guy who has yet to pitch more than half a season as a starter in the majors. He could be good. He could break down. How will he react to 200+ innings? Can he make it? As Balta suggested, you can't use this argument -- at all -- considering Danks and Masset haven't proven s***.

QUOTE(Beastly @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 01:25 AM) Am I wrong to believe that this could only mean us signing Mulder, Zito or Suppan? Just throwing it out there, I don't know what Kenny's intentions are after all of these trades he's made. Also raises up a few questions in my mind: What is Crede's situation this year? Will we talk to Tampa Bay about Bodelli or Crawford? Answer to all your questions: MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM BEASTLY.

QUOTE(dasox24 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 12:53 AM) Yeah, but when Jason says this, you should probably believe it. This is not just some random, little-known poster. When Jason says something about having inside info, he's telling the truth. I very very rarely have heard him use the "inside source" card, if ever. Jeez, I don't mean to be kissing Jas' ass so much in this thread, but I just feel pretty strongly towards what Jason has to say. I'm not one to question Chisoxfn or Heads, but it's bordering on torture to claim inside knowledge, tease us fans who believe this trade was unnecessary, then refuse to tell.

Return value aside, I admire Williams for initiating this move because it's most certaintly a situation where he'll appear foolish for several seasons. I have to believe, park factors and strenth of opponents factored in, McCarthy will fare better than any 5th starter substitute our organization produces. Every victory will be monitored. Every matchup will be assessed and compared to our current situation. It may not be fair, but I'm not to disagree with such actions. Williams knows what McCarthy is capable of. Whatever he does in Texas, no one within the White Sox organization can convince me -- with a straight face -- they didn't think he was capable of developing into a quality pitcher. Only justice for Williams and those who blindly support every move of his is if Masset and Danks both develop into quality pitchers. I'm sure people will say, "let's wait before assessing this trade," but honestly -- is it reasonable to remain quiet for three seasons? I share frustrations with Balta because, regardless of his noted failures in the bullpen, Brandon's essentially the pitcher we could least afford to lose. He's the pitcher who embodied Williams' approach of rebuilding a veteran staff with younger, cheaper starters who remain under control for 5+years. This is one particular move I'm not giving Williams any benefit of doubt.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:50 PM) I assume you meant that BP would bash KW because of this deal? Quite the opposite. In fact, the past couple deals -- for Gonzalez, Floyd, Sisco, and now Danks/Masset -- has made KW a lot of fans in some 'saber-circles' (right or wrong). Surprised me quite a bit. Article doesn't even mention Masset.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:45 PM) Well my only question is who now is our 5th starter. Whomever wins it during spring training. Hopefully, someone will be the obvious winner and we won't have a situation where the lesser of crap is selected.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:15 PM) I believe the organization likes Haegar more than McCarthy. Think about facing Haegar and then any of six guys that throw 95+ out of the pen. At the start of the winter OG stated that he wanted 6 guys that could close. Well he has them. I also believe there is a major deal coming up for a couple of young pithcers (ie Danks and Broadway for Crawford). Any deal involving any positional player shouldn't even be under consideration. A reasonable person can't possibly trade McCarthy, Broadway, Danks within one offseason at the risk of abandoning pitching depth. Screw Crawford. Everyone should forget about him. He won't help us much when the various starters within our rotation begin to leave. Since our organization has shown a reluctance to sign pitchers to long term deals, it makes more sense to stockup on that division of the system. Anyways, knowing how Williams has operated, it'll probably be Danks/Broadway/Gonzalez for Crawford. That's far too much of our future for someone who represents 1/9 of a lineup. I realize his potential, but Jesus, how much are we willing to sacrifice for him?

QUOTE(Mr. Showtime @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 05:43 PM) Indeed, wrong. It has to be one of the following: -injured -threat of injury -attitude I don't need to know now, but I figure it'll come out at some point. Perhaps if there's anything to Guillen disliking him McCarthy can spill it out during the Rangers press conference.

I can't wait until Ken Rosenthal posts another article criticizing one of our offseason moves. I predict the following sentence: "As one rival AL GM told suggested, '[Williams] vastly undervalued his own starter. Trading McCarthy will come back to haunt them." I'm sure Baseball Prospectus will have a delightful twist on it as well. Not that any of it matters, of course. Just have to revel in a move which is dismissed across the entire baseball world.

QUOTE(beautox @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) from KWs conference call, our BP is going to be NASTY! hopefully they'll all find the strike zone, apparently Sisco is going to be the long man out of the pen to work on all his pitches and eventually get back into the rotation. Sisco, Masset, Aardsma, MacDougal, Thornton, Jenks with Perez and Logan down on the farm. Another stupid decision. It'd make more sense to place Haeger in the bullpen as the long reliever and have Sisco in Charlotte. If your quotes are correct, they plan on leaving him in the rotation to work on devleopintg his pitchers for an upcoming spot in the rotation. Okay, but wouldn't it make MORE sense to put him in the minor leagues where he can do the same thing without the inconsistent workload? Nah, just stunt the growth of another starter.

QUOTE(TitoMB345 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) I still think he was too uncomfortable coming out of the pen last year as well. I was expecting big things out of McCarthy, or atleast a big name in return for him. We didn't get that. I hope McCarthy's troubles in the bullpen taught us a lesson. No more transitioning minor league starters to long relievers in the bullpen. Williams inability to address the situation in 2006 stunted the growth of Brandon. With Guillen pushing our current starters, any long reliever is not going to find a sufficient amount of work. Haeger is an exception only because his durability as a knuckleballer will allow Guillen more options to use him.

Utterly ridiculous. I've read this entire thread, expecting quotes from Williams or various news outlets to filter in news regarding additional prospects. Where's the rationale behind this deal? Chisoxfn -- you alledge inside information which may have necessitated this move. I don't want to pry, but I believe many here would appreciate if you could atleast give a slight clue. PM me if you're not willing to post it. Personally, I've never felt anyone on our club was untouchable. For the right price, I wouldn't have been against dealing MccArthy. But this deal.....is absolutely pathetic. How exactly did we not end up with Hurley? Why did we trade McCarthy at this particular point? I just don't understand. IF Williams had intentions all along of dealing McCarthy, why not wait until later in the offseason? We were already set in the rotation. This move appears to be, once again, Williams not understanding the meaning of leverage. How the f*** can you not trade McCarthy, considering his service time and past production, for atleast two of an organizations top prospects? Williams has disappointed me here. I have no further faith in him; unless of course it involves "low key," or "under the radar" moves. He better damn well hope either Masset or Danks reach or exceed the level of McCarthy. Everyone in Chicago will be monitoring Brandon's progress in Texas. If he develops into a quality pitcher, Williams can't claim ignorance. We've all seen his capabilities within the starting rotation. It's just another head scratcher from Williams. I suppose one benefit from this deal is reading through this thread and coming across the usual suspects of Williams' ass kissers. Those who apparently believe he understands the pitching prospects of other organizations better than they understand their own. Despite the fact we can't develop pitching prospects, and even those who do show promise (McCarthy) are delt.

He'll have to begin throwing sliders for strikes, in addition to developing a quality changeup, before legitimate discussions begin. We're quite a ways away from that period. If I were Thornton, I'd use spring training as a testing ground for certain pitches. Hell, perhaps management will allow him an opportunity to pitch 5 innings in one or two games.