Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 04:49 PM) ....and yet you will continue to pout how KW "can't get teams to overpay for one of our starters." Really fair. It isn't supposed to be fair. We have a surplus of starting pitching -- why shouldn't we expect other ballclubs to overpay? If clubs don't wish to honor our demands, fine -- overpay for Zito or Schmidt. The entire benefit of being in Williams position is knowing you have something with other teams covet.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) ...and what do you do when Omar tells you he's not going to trade him for anything? Then I don't trade him to New York and listen to other offers. That simple.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) Are you implying that Chris Young is one of the top prospects in all of baseball? I didnt even think he was OUR top prospect. Currently, Chris Young is one of the top positional prospects. When he was traded last offseason, I'm sure many would label him around the Top 20. If you go and look at Baseball America's list of Top Prospects -- and remove those who had previous service (such as Liriano/Jenks) -- he'd be around the Top 10 overall prospects in MLB.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) Did Kenny s*** in your salad or what? Him and Broadway must have stabbed you in the eye or something. I'm not entirely blaming Williams. He can ask for whatever he wants, but if no one gives it up, what can he do? I just find it ridiculous how we're going to receive fair value for one of our starters, yet everyone knows full well if it were Williams trading for one of these starters he'd overpay. It's almost mind-boggling how, in this market for starting pitchers, we couldn't expect ONE f***ING TEAM to overpay for one of our starters. It's ridiculous. You just wonder, where's the Psuedo Kenny Williams out there? Where's the person willing to trade top prospects? I love it how suddenly every general manager is using their heads in these deals.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 04:27 PM) Bold prediction: None of Pelfrey, Hughes, Bailey, or Wood will be traded to the White Sox for one of our starters. Would only make sense Williams trades one of the top prospects in baseball for Vazquez, yet this offseason -- when pitching is overvalued in the market -- we'd only equal value for one of our starters.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) Vasquez will go to the Mets if this happens. Entertaining such a possibility, if Vazquez is going then we better damn well receive Pelfrey in return. Two options with Pelfrey: 1. Holding onto Pelfrey for an additional season allows us to absorb the loss of Buehrle -- if he so decides to leave following 2007. He'd likely remain in the minors throughout next season. I'd prefer this option since it would allow the possible three-some of McCarthy/Santana/Pelfrey in 2008. 3B and CF are still problems, though. 2. If Pelfrey is acquired, perhaps he's then package with Anderson (and Broadway, Fields) to Florida for Miguel Cabrera . I know it sounds ridiculous --especially considering Cabreras's value-- just throwing that suggestion out there. As I figure, Sweeney would replace Anderson in CF; Figgens replaces Podsednik. I haven't heard Cabrera's name mentioned in trade talks since his association with St. Louis, but Pelfrey/Anderson/Broadway/Fields is quite generous for a team such as Florida. They have a young CF and SP whom can immediately be plugged in, and two other options in Fields and Broadway whom may be servicable by 2008.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Figgins is NOT our 3B, he is beyond brutal at that position. If you deal Joe, our starting 3B is Josh Fields. I haven't seen him actually play the position, but I'll take your word. I've merely heard he's capable of playing various positions across the diamond. Josh Fields as our starting 3B won't work. We can tolerate one struggling player in Anderson, but expecting both him and Fields to adjust to the majors is unacceptable. If Fields IS the solution at 3B, the LF solution should be far more valuable than Figgens.

I actually commented in a thread last week a deal of this magnitude, involving those players, was fairly matched. This proposed scenario is problem, in one sense, because we're expecting someone to overpay for one of our starters. Not put us in a position where we're unloading Crede packaged with Garcia. Even for a player of Santana and Figgens calibur. Problem I have is if you believe Figgens will be in LF, who's our 3B? If you believe Figgens is our 3B, you can't POSSIBLY maintain Podsednik in LF. Hopefully, if this is true, another starter is traded for a package possibly involving a 3B/SP prospects. Or Anaheim includes an additional infield prospect

QUOTE(ptatc @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 02:41 PM) You shouldn't evaluate the trade after one year. I think you are giving up on Anderson too soon and giving Young All -Star status too soon. Let's see how Young does in his first years in the league and compare them to Anderson's. I still think prior to last year getting Vazquez made sense to win in the short term. Young still hasn't made the jump to big league regular. He wouldn't have helped us last year. It would have made sense if acquiring Vazquez meant trading another starter --while their value was at it's highest -- for both bullpen help and SP prospects. McCarthy could have then been inserted into the rotation. I never took to the belief often cited that holding McCarthy as insurance in the bullpen was necessary. That, in the event a starter was injured, he would be pitching in the rotation. If worse came to worse and a season ending injury occured to a starter, that's tough luck. You can't reasonably construct every team to have five solid pitchers and fully capable starting pitcher in the bullpen. I believe in maximizing a players effectiveness -- MccArthy in the bullpen doesn't solve that. Haeger would have likely been added midseason, anyways. Far as trading Reed, I'll admit I HATED the trade. Thought Olivo/Reed/Morse was too much for Garcia. Difference is, at that point in 2004, Anderson, Sweeney, Young we're still hopefuls for the future. It was reasonable to conclude atleast one would be a servicable OF. However, now -- in 2006-- with Young gone and Anderson struggling we're left with Sweeney; whom may take several more years to develop as well. Aside from Sweeney, there's little else aside from Podsednik-lite in Owens.

UH OH. Looks like we'll no longer have the argument of, "well, Williams trades prospects, but how often do any of them turn into quality players? I can only assume whichever starter delt will give us a prospect comparable to Chris Young.........right? If you're one who believes Vazquez was a good move, then you must admit keeping the rotation completely entact was a poor decision. It would have made perfect sense, once Vazquez was on our ballclub, to insert McCarthy then trade a starting pitcher for a collection of bullpen arms/SP prospects. This would have solved our bulpen woes, but again, who knows if it would have made a difference? Perhaps Thornton is never saught. I didn't have forsight into the future, obviously, but I knew full well it wasn't smart placing a starting pitcher such as McCarthy into the bullpen. This deal hurts even more when you look at flailing Brian Anderson adjust to major league pitching. It's embarrassing. And there isn't exactly any OF prospects aside from Sweeney, whose hardly on Young's level, available to contribute. We're going to have Vazquez for, what, two more seasons? Young would have been a welcomed addition in CF for the next 6+ years. Lesson learned for Williams. You give up quality prospects, you better damn well hope the player obtained is more reliable than Javier Vazquez. And, preferably, around for more than three seasons.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 26, 2006 -> 06:37 PM) And if the Pats didnt drop every handoff and get called for phantom inference calls that lead to 45 yard penalties, the game is most likely theirs. Yeah, I wouldn't exactly say we had a chance when one generous passing interference call led to 7 points, and another -- less questionable but still iffy -- led to a field goal. I'm confident the right team won. I'm just concerned about Grossman. When does it come to the point when people stop defending him and perhaps realize he's, well, not that good?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 26, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) This last INT really put me over the edge. It's just utterly ridiculous. I was typing before the first play, "This is where Grossman proves himself -- in Foxboro, down four points, a touchdown needed for vic......" interception. You can't excuse his performance anymore. I honestly don't care about our record. We can't use it to justify Grossman at the helm if he continues throwing interceptions, throwing off his backfoot, and missing wide open receivers. Although you can't entirely blame him for the loss. How long did Brady have in the pocket? What happened to blitzing? I'm just judging Rex alone.

I'm done with Grossman. His leash is nonexistent now. This is it. You have to be a complete f***ing IDIOT to throw a interception immediately following a monumental turnover by the defense.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 26, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) Grossman has to f***ing quit it with the turnovers or I would not object to changing to someone who can protect the ball. I missed the play which caused his hand injury, but I'm concerned with anything capable of making Grossman even worse. If it's obvious his passes are off (more than usual) we can't take the chance. I wouldn't mind if Lovie game him until the 3rd quarter to rest.

Patriots have torn apart our defense this drive. Has any play gained less than six yards?

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 25, 2006 -> 02:20 PM) I think KW is waiting until the dust settles and he's sitting with quality SPs to deal and desperate teams I know we've discussed this before in another thread, but I don't believe this. What if the dust doesn't finally settle until February? Are we realistically going to hold off until then; a month away from spring training? It's best to have options available when the largest pool of teams remain. Last season was the opportunity, after Vazquez was acquired, to offer starters to the highest bidder. It was essentially the perfect situation. If he didn't appreciate the return value of his starters, then they were merely inserted into the rotation. We currently don't have that luxury. I believe we can't rely on a desperate team overpaying. What it if never occurs? I know I continually hope for it, but if we're a month away from now --and all five starters remain-- I have to wonder whether we've lost all leverage. Whether or not Texas and New York have found their SP's, and what we're left with is Cincinnati. Or another ballclub offering little options which appeal to us. We're not in a good position because it's evident through McCarthy's bullpen struggles, and several impending free agents after 2007, a starter will depart. That gives another ballclub reason to believe they can persue FA pitchers, and if that avenue doesn't work, merely wait for the price of our starters to drop. Way I figure, if the proposals were generous for any of our starters we'd already have traded them. Look what happened with New York and Sheffield. Cashman didn't hesitate one second.

I'll say this -- there may be plenty of time between now and Spring Training, but once Zito and Schmidt sign, everything may fall into place quickly. If we're entering February with our same starting rotation entact something is terribly wrong. The onslaught of positional players singing will likely mimmick that of pitchers once exact market price is established. At which point, Williams absolutely can't wait around. Wait too long and we're going to be appear desperate. I've already set an arbitrary date of Christmas for trading our starters. Even if Zito/Schmidt have yet to sign, we can't reasonably wait very long. For example -- if Texas and New York Mets were to sign Meche and Zito respectively, we'd essentially be without a viable trading partner. Far as updating SS/LF/CF, those positions can be addressed at any point from now Spring Training. Trading a starter is more important, as relatively few contingency plans exist. You can't tell yourself, "well, even if worst comes to worst we have all five starters returning and McCarthy in the bullpen." No..no...no. I could tolerate Uribe/Podsednik/Anderson if absolutely no upgrades were sought.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) Talent wise, I'll agree with you 100%. Rebuilding now, after such a successful season ticket renewal and with another title realistically possible would be a marketing disaster for the Sox. It would stink of cheap, white flag trade, and small market team. Move Crede and Garland and whoever and rebuild in 2008 if 2007 is a failure. I'd be CRUSHED if they "rebuilt" by trading more than one starter for prospects. The free agent market is just NUTS. I don't think it can continue like this for many offseasons without ruining the game. You suggest rebuilding the team after next season if it's a 'failure.' First, define failure. If next years ballclub were to win 82 games, you'd consider it a failure, no? Or would you believe whoever tailed off merely had a poor season and we should maintain them for 2008? There needs to be clear, indisputable guidelines for determining our success. I believe it's foolish not to prepare beyond 2007. You can't just rest your hopes on one season; and if it doesnt go how we wish, completely disband the ballclub. If this philosophy were truly felt by Williams, why doesn't he trade McCarthy -- as well as the remaining prospects of value -- and go all out next season?

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 11:18 PM) We have such a short window though with this current team, and like others have said, KW will have failed us if he didn't upgrade at the leadoff/LF spot. The Southtown reports that we're more likely now to bring Pods back. I can't believe that's even a consideration after his pathetic effort last season. I consider issues with our pitching staff to me much more important. If Williams were unable to find a replacement for Podsednik it would irritate me, but not nearly as much as holding onto all starters. He'll fail us (IMO) if the return package for any starter is not an obvious win in our favor. Think about it - our future depends upon it. We may need MLB ready pitchers by 2008 in the event Garcia/Buehrle (if not already traded) were to depart. And I'm not looking for Carlos Lee deals where the package itself is crap, but money saved from the transaction goes towards the salaries of other players. No, none of this should occur. I don't care if it helped win a World Series, either. If receiving the best package means eating all of a starter's 2007 salary - do it. If such a decision means names such Pelfrey or Danks/Hurley are included, it's well worth the financial burden. With this current market, it's nearly impossible not to have trade proposals in your benefit when five, six ballclubs are searching for solutions which don't require a 90 million dollar commitment. That's why listening to the Rangers balking at Danks for Vazquez alone is mind-boggling.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) Compared to some of the other contracts we're seeing, it's really not that awful. We have such a glaring hole in LF/leadoff, I don't think it's too much of a risk. I'm just not thrilled with the thought of Dave Roberts patrolling LF beyond next season. For a 1yr solution, without quesiton; but not beyond 2007. I'd rather select Podsednik over Roberts if it means one extra season of conditioning a possible replacement (Fields/Sweeney), or perhaps understanding whether or not he's capable of recovering from injury. If Podsednik has a good season next year, they can sign him to a long term deal. If not, we'll let him go and persue other options.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 08:52 PM) I am actually in favor of bring Pods' back at this point, as well as leaving the team as is. Could we use help in the OF ? Yes, but the White Sox, one year ago, were extremely high on Brian Anderson, and going into his season, love Ryan Sweeney. If Pods' can come into camp in great shape, perhaps the White Sox can rest him more often and rotate the 3 players in LF/CF. I think the biggest focus this off-season needs to be resigning Dye, Crede, and other players not far off from free agency - the White Sox don't want to get involved in the free agent market - I can't blame them for that. They also seem intent on improving their minor league depth, and that could improve by not trading away minor league talent for immediate help in the majors. This team won 90 games last season not reall clicking. We've seen what playoff runs do to pitching staffs the folowing season and we have Minny and Detroit in the division - I expect these teams to come down to earth as well. .......... PLEASE don't even suggest leaving the team as it's currently structured. It seriously aggrivates even to think about such a scenario. Why exactly would Williams find it necessary to rearrange his ballclub after winning a World Series, yet the following season - when his team misses a playoff birth- leave everything as is? I understand the 2005 Chicago White Sox were unlikely to repeat if no changes occured, but similarily, neither will this ballclub. It's lazy general managing to pat himself on the back and suggest, "well, this team just didn't click. I'm going to set back and revel in the beauty of my creation. No further moves are necessary." Williams decides not to tamper with the offense? Fine. It's understandable. But this pitching staff needs McCarthy within it and someone removed; preferably for a generous package including SP prospects. It's just no reasonable to expect Williams to sign contracts to every upcoming FA. For example - If a team were seriously considering overpaying for Dye, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat. No way in hell he's signing another contract here if his numbers are anywhere close to last seasons. I appreciate what he's done in White Sox uniform; but considering his performance last year, his impending FA, and what he could provide in a trade - I'd be open to discussions. Although, to be clear, I wouldn't move him for anything less than an absolute killing.

I have a suggestion, although it doesn't concern a particular question. It concerns the manner in which this debate is conducted. Here's what I think -- hold it in the chatroom. Not as if anything else is going on within the world of White Sox baseball. Everyone interested can watch as the candidates respond to questions immediately. Let them feel the pressure (if you can call it that), opposed to the lax conditions posting on a message board present. Soxy and SS2k4 can still moderate. They can even use one of the various chatroom sounds to indicate when a candidate's time is up. You know, mimicking the conditions of a true debate. Picture this -- ELECTION NIGHT December 10, 2006. 7-8pm in the chatroom. It'll be delicious.

QUOTE(Purdue129 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 11:16 PM) Here's Cowley on WFAN with Mike and Maddog earlier today. They pretty much destroy him. http://www.wfan.com/episode_download.php?c...ontentId=173121 14pts for 1st 9 for 2nd 8 for 3rd 7 for 4th 6 for 5th 5 for 6th 4 for 7th 3 for 8th 2 for 9th 1 for 10th Well, that destroys my conspiracy theory. Didn't think they difference among second place and below was one point. If Cowley or Detroit's John Lowe actually knew how votes were to be distributed among players, they could have atleast voted several spots higher and saved face. I'm sure Cowley will have the burden of this on shoulder for quite awhile. May jeopardize his career if he had any aspirations of moving up past the Sun Times.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) Ballots.... Joe Cowley put AJ 10th, and failed to include Mauer. I think there is a bit of collusion going on here. How did so many writers, including the Twins writers, come up with Morneau as the top choice when his numbers are strikingly similar to Konkero's. /adjusts tinfoil hat I believe Cowley, without question, knew how other writers were voting. Detroit's John Lowe may have been collaborating with him as well. Isn't it rather suspicious Joe places Jeter in 6th place -- two places below John Lowe's vote -- and the total points seperating the two top candidates is fourteen? There appears to be far less variability among Jeter than Morneau. It's as if both writers knew beforehand what was necessary to hold Jeter from obtaining his award. Now, If someone could figure out exactly how many points correspond to each position, then we'll know whether one slot higher for both Lowe and Cowley would have made a difference.

Anyone know how MVP points are distributed among first place, second place, third place votes? Cowley's shunning of Jeter may have been the difference. Personally, I love it when people are upset. Anyone else just have a smile cross their face when a large group of people (not associated with the White Sox, of course) are aggrivated? It's hilarious to observe. Defying Jeter his MVP award may have caused ESPN to have a heart attack -- and they'll likely reference it forever -- but it's well worth the outrage. While I typically adopt a belief where the most deserving candidate should be awarded their achievements, I take exception with this particular MVP race.