Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) To be honest I can't see why Texas would give up Otsuka. Who's going to be their closer? Even with his stellar splits against righties, is it worth paying 2+ million for a RH specialist? I can't just over his age, either. It's as if Texas has learned a lesson from San Diego -- sell Otsuka high. National League hit him considerably better after his rookie season. They probably believe the American League will fare better the second year around, ala Shingo. You have to be suspicious of Texas dealing pitchers who've proven themself capable of pitchign in Arlington. That's why I bit wearly of his inclusion in this trade. Considering Garland's value, age, and the market for starting pitchers, it's not unreasonable to expect two good SP prospects and Massett (because the Sox seem to like him). This package for Garland hardly seems to be the blockbuster I'd expect from all the supposed teams calling Williams.

I'm not a fan of this supposed package -- especially if Anderson is included. Danks I have no problem. I could understand Otsuka, even though I'd rather avoid him. But Massett?! What exactly do this organization see in him? Honesetly, I'd rather Texas hold onto Otsuka and give us additional SP prospect. Don't like the idea of only obtaining one for Garland.

QUOTE(kwill @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) 3 was deal White sox get: Crawford+Figgins Angels get: Crede+Garcia Tanpa Bay get: E. Santana and a prospect It makes sense for all parties. Tampa gets a great young pitcher. Angels get that power bat in Crede and front line starter in Garcia. We get the table setters for the middle of the lineup...Imagine the lineup, CHONE CRAWFORD DYE THOME KONERKO AJ TADIHITO URIBE SWEENEY/ANDERSON/FIELDS tHATS WHATS GREAT ABOUT FIGGINS, WE COULD SEE WHO IS THE BEST PROSPECT. Any scenario in which we're the ones not receiving Ervin Santana is not worth persuing, IMO. Remove Crawford and replace him with Santana it's more feasible. However, if I'm Williams, Anaheim needs to include an additional MIF prospect. Jason is more familar with Anaheim's problems, but if they're interested in Anderson he'll be included. Figure this-- Crede is among the top 5 3B in the AL, and has shown several years of steady progress, yet Santana is nowhere near a comparable level among starting pitchers. He certainly may be, but you can't use that possibility when dealing with Crede--whose already proven himself. Anything beyond a 1-for-1 trade is unreasonable. Now, put together the last two players in that proposal: Garcia and Figgens. That's....not equal. Angels should include either Aybar/Wood. Crede + Garcia + Anderson = Santana + Figgens + Wood. That's an equal f***ing trade. I just heard on ESPN News Angels have officially inquired about Zito. They've offered Soriano a deal as well. This is exactly why Williams can't wait back and let teams find their pitchers. We're removing trading partners from the table.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) yea, it wouldn't surprise me if KW waits until most of the free agent signings occur so he can maximize his return package as a desperate team will most likely overpay for one of our pitchers. You know, I don't entirely believe this is true. When various high profile FA pitchers sign, we're (likely) eliminating those teams from dealing with us. Potential trading partners will eventually become fewer and fewer. I'd be more willing to offer our starters when the entire field is a possibility. Even though there remains a lot of time between now and Spring Training, Williams waits long enough and suddenly he'll become the desperate party. Everyone already knows we're willing to sell. It's a bit different dealing with 10 teams now than 5 two months from now; none of which may possess the prospects/players we may covet. I'm not suggesting Williams immediately jumps upon the first offer; but honestly, we should have already traded a starter by Christmas. After that, I'll be more worried about return value than I currently am.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) Garcia/Fields/Anderson for Figgins/Santana. I have no problem with such a trade. Far as talent is concerned, you can't reasonably expect better than Santana unless Pelfrey is an option. One interesting dilemma would be figuring out which additional pitcher will depart. Would we seek a CF, C, pitching prospects? Intersting to think about. I could live with Sweeney/RH option platooning in CF, although the catching situation desperately needs additional depth. Stewart doesn't work for me.

QUOTE(TaylorStSox @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Are you writing a corporate mission statement? You're a fan for christ sakes. You're not part of the organization. The internet can be beyond weird. You think that's weird? I'm at UIC right now, why don't you tell me where you live are Taylor Street so I can find you and KICK YOUR ASS!!!!

QUOTE(VAfan @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) So far, this offseason is not looking good for the Sox moving back to the top of the AL Central. I suppose the best news is that Liriano is out next year. But there don't appear to be good answers to any of the following questions: 1. Starting pitching. 2. Left field. 3. Bullpen. 4. Hitting lefties. 5. Center field. 6. Shortstop. Well, that's enough for now. I think this has to be KW's most challenging offseason. Everything is overpriced again. There are a lot of tough choices, and not many good options. You're correct -- it's possible there may not be a 'good' answer to any of the concerns listed above. However, there are several areas which many are certain we'll receive upgrades; including myself. Now, I base the following scenario off an unfounded rumor. Let's speculate Freddy Garcia + Broadway gives us Ervin Santana. You may plug in Mike Pelfrey in there as well. Immediately, we'll have a capable replacement for Garcia/whomever and a young pitcher placed alongside McCarthy in rotation. You may speculate whether the rotation has legitimately improved over last season, but I personally believe it couldn't be much worse than this season. We know it won't cost as much. Thereafter, another starting pitcher is delt for a collection of prospects. These prospects are then shipped off to Tampa Bay for Carl Crawford. With Crawford's bat in the lineup, suddenly Anderson and Uribe's troubles are less noticeable. Whether it goes exactly like this, I personally believe the ideal situation is trading two starters and receiving one major leauge ready arm and Crawford. Additional pitching prospects held on would only be an added benefit. Second choice of mine would be to trade one starter for young pitching arms and simply hold onto them.

QUOTE(shoota @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) I'm glad we share the same organizational philosophy, and count me in your camp that finds it unacceptable the team hasn't found/produced a Johan Santana or Francisco Liriano. Well, now I believe you're just mocking me. I have used the point of referencing Liriano and Santana as pitchers we're unable to obtain because our Latin American scouting has been so atrocious. Not that I find it 'unacceptable' we currently have a pitcher of eithers stature, but that we seemingly have no intent on searching for them. That's all I have to say about that. Don't want to sidetrack this thread.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) Just for the sake of arguing, would people rather trade McCarthy or Santana for Crawford? I'd rather maintain both, but for the sake of arguing.... I'd have to say McCarthy. He may ultimately be more successful, but because he has yet to pitch over an entire season in the majors, there's little evidence on how he'll fare.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) why would the angels want freddy over santana when santana had the better season next year, and projects to be the much better starting pitcher for the next five years? As if general managers always make wise decisions. Perhaps Angels feel their opportunity to contend within the AL West is slowly diminishing, and for what Garcia may offer them next season -- perhaps added with a contract below market value -- he's more valuable than a pitching project in Santana. Unless he's hurt, I don't care to know their reasons.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) Anaheim would be incredibly stupid to do this straight-up. But if we threw in BA and another prospect, they might be interested. Alternatively, Freddy and maybe a prospect might snag us Figgins. I wouldn't mind him in LF, or even CF. Yes, but the entire point of withholding a surplus of starting pitching, in an extremely outrageous market, is to hope for a ridiculously lopsided deal. Why exactly should Williams trade Garcia, or any other starter, if we're not the obvious beneficiary of someone overpaying? Santana for Garcia it is.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 07:32 AM) On that Texas scenario, would people prefer trying to get Eric Hurley included instead of Otsuka, and then we try to sign Justin Speier in FA? Kill 2 birds with 1 stone basically there. I like the way we're heading here though. I'd prefer Williams choose Hurley over Otsuka. I don't know what the Sox see in Nick Masset, though . Any deal for our starters should include, at the least, two SP prospects. Vazquez or Buehrle and Anderson for Danks/Masset/Hurley/additonal player is about what I'd expect. If Sheffield is worth three legitimate pitching prospects, Vazquez and Anderson should be worth atleast two themselves.

So.............how was the Pancake Breakfast on October 20th? Delicious I bet.

QUOTE(shoota @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 11:11 PM) Right, and since I'm a fan of the White Sox, I want my general manager to be the smartest and most influential and GM in sports. Not true. Bad trades still occur, and I desire the Sox's GM to frequently win and never lose those types of trades. Also, I find it acceptable for my GM to draft the best future major league players. Son, I like the way you're put together. Extracting this philosophy of holding our organization to high standards, which I often cite, is why I EXPECT Williams to orchestrate a trade which heavily favors us this offseason. Such a scenario centers around our starting pitching staff. If he's unable to sell any of our five starting pitchers above what an impartial observal may deem equal value, something is wrong. Especially in this market of outrageous demands where so few candidates are worthy of their contracts. Why should I expect so little in return when I know if the situation were flipped, and we were the ones acquiring a veteran pitcher, Williams would overpay for a starting pitcher. The entire purpose of shopping all five starters to the most generous bid during peek demand is making sure we don't have to "give something to get something." /time for my prozac now!111

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 11:06 PM) I'm with SSI and would sign Alex Gonzalez in a quickie over Juan "overrated" Uribe. I don't care about his homers. We have boppers. We need to get guys on base. And since when has Uribe ever won a GG? Since when does Gonzalez get on base? For the difference in salary we'd be expected to pay him over Uribe, you'd expect an OBP higher than .300. If Williams is serious about singing him, I have to believe it's due to the likelihood of retaining him through 2010. Not because of any supposed intangles he may possess over Taz.

Since my CD-RW drive quit responding nearly a year ago I've been left with a personal compilation of two disks devoted entirely to Pink Floyd. Nothing more fitting than listening to 'Welcome to the Machine' driving to work. Or 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' returning home from school late on weekends. Always a song available to fit your particular mood.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 08:00 PM) The only way it makes sense is if KW has a deal working and that team wants Uribe as part of it. Say one of our starters and Uribe. KW would not want to get stuck without a good fielding shortstop. The problem with such a proposal is matching up a possible suitor. You immediately remove the two most referenced teams in Texas and New York Mets. Which teams come to mind? Every American league team (assuming we're not trading within our division) aside from Toronto, the team mentioned within the article, wouldn't fit. National League is a bit different picture, but still rather limited when you remove those unlikely to acquire to two players who'll cost in excess of 13 million. Who's available, Cincinnati? What could they offer for those two?

Jesus, talk about a lateral move. They're practically clones of one another - Latin ballplayers who are good defensively and show little plate discipline. Uribe has a higher slugging percentage and more RBI's than Gonzalez, yet lower a average/OBP. I would see little benefit aside from his contract, which extends beyonds Uribes. If we're intent on upgrading, atleast make it a legitimate upgrade. This is an everyday player we're talking about, now a bullpen arm such as Neal Cotts.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 04:49 PM) If, you mean when Mac spends time on the DL. That alone is why I don't want us to have Haeger in our pen. I'd rather have Haeger pitching every 5 days ready in case a starter goes down. Why is it necessary for him to pitch every five days? By the nature of throwing a knuckleball he doesn't require extensive preparation. It's probably the most fluid delivery possible for a pitcher in terms of matching the arms natural motion. He could easily shift from the bullpen to spot-starting. I honestly expect a productive Haeger to pitch 100+ innings out of the bullpen. As we've previously discussed, last years disasterous experiment with McCarthy set back his development. You can't reasonably add a large amount of innings upon Brandon after only going 84 last season. I wouldn't expect our coaching staff to have him exceed a workload of 160-170. Someone should be available, if necessary, to hold a lead into the 7th inning without taxing the other relievers. The list I came across doesn't mention Vasquez, yet it also doesn't cite Health Phillips or Jay Marshal as potential minor league FAs. http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/mil...06/index.jsp?#M I'd like to believe Williams isn't dumb enough to acquire a pitching prospect only to lose him during the Rule 5 draft. Especially when there are 5 positions open and players such as Reynoso, Lopez, and Rogowski occupying other spots. QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 06:53 PM) These are the type of deals KW has done very well on. Neal was horrible vs. the top lefty batters in the AL central--which is his biggest job. I for one will give KW the benefit of the doubt. You didn't sound so optimistic about trading Neal in your other thread, why the sudden turnaround in three days? Especially when you noted how Cotts should only be delt for an overwhelming offer, which I don't believe many would consider Aardsma and Vasquez.

I don't know many trades of ours Rotoworld has agreed with. Cotts as a third/fourth starer wouldn't have been practical even during 2005. Obviously, this is an instance where people are forming opinions merely based upon statistics and video footage. Anyone watching him knows the percentage of pitchers thrown is atleast 95% fastball, 5% slider. Anyways, Wiliams history has shown he typically comes up big in these small trades/signings involving discarded players from other ballclubs.

If I were to judge this transaction alone -- without the possibility of Aardsma/Vasquez included in another trade -- I'm honestly not too upset. The reason? I wouldn't be shocked if an injury is disclosed within the next year concerning Neal. His delivery was COMPLETELY altered the second half of last season. I mentioned this observation numerous times in game threads. If this is the best offer we could receive for Cotts, one season removed from dominance in the bullpen, then better something now while he has some value. In his delivery post ASB, when I began to wonder why Cotts became batting practice, I noticed the hitch/pump action (whatever you may label it) which disrupted a hitters timing was absent. I even went so far as to watch the Sox Pride DVD immediately before one of his appearances. Cotts began releasing pitches through one continuous motion. There was no deception anymore to hide his mediocre 91mph fastball. Now, what you have to ask yourself is exactly why Neal abandons the one thing responsible for his success, if not for injury? Surely Williams knew the price of Cotts, and the ceiling he presents when performing at a peak capabilities. Aardsma possess a legitimate fastball without the need for deception. As with Thorton, you can't teach somone velocity. Control and secondary pitchers can be developed. Far as Vasquez? I can't complain. We're not exactly stacked with capable lefthanded pitching prospects.

Obviously, I can't defend that. One positive I can give myself is atleast I've remained consistent. You may consider that a broken record, but I'm sure if I flipflopped somewhere during my nearly 8,000 posts you'd find that as well. But really, that comment is from nearly three years ago. Weren't you more recently advocating the trade of basically the entire team for Randy Johnson? If I didn't have a train to catch I'm sure I would find it. Everyone has had their share of poor proposals.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 11:07 AM) Didn't see this posted anywhere. From SI.com... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...ed.scoop/2.html What!? The rotation assembled from God's own image can't even net a pitching prospect? Looks like I should brace myself for disappointment when one of the starters do depart. Aside from a weak package, I just know we're going to demand the other club pay the players remaining salary. Thus, weakening our return value even more. OF COURSE Pelfrey isn't worth any of our starters, but if Minaya desires a paper thin starting rotation to maintain leads for his offense, then so be it. He can obtain Mulder, or some other scrub on the market.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 01:28 AM) Oh no! There appears to be some controversy, or at least some shoddy reporting. Kevin Towers for teh win?! This bit of information flew under the radar.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 01:19 AM) Question here, if we acquired Pelfrey, do you think the D-Rays would accept Pelfrey and Fields for Crawford? I'm starting to think Heilman and Fields may not be a good enough offer. Whoa, now. If we have Pelfrey in our possessions and are dead-set on acquiring Crawford, his ass is staying put. McCarthy is in that deal with Fields. And I wouldn't be surprised if Williams added Sweeney to place us over the top.