Flash Tizzle

Is there any indication which teams have currently placed bids? I know the process is secretive, but I thought information would have surfaced as to the identity of bidding teams. I know the White Sox aren't one, that's for sure. They wouldn't have done anything whether or not Boras was involved, and personally, that's rather upsetting to me. I would have definitely accepted the risk of signing Daisuke. Trade two starting pitchers, insert Brandon, and suddenly the net salary increase isn't so high. Oh, but know cares? We're good with what we currently have. Rather go for it under this "window of opportunity" with the current rotation entact. LOL. I have to admit, though, I would definitely cheer for the Cubs to successfully sign Daisuke. For one, his presence in the National League reeps the obvious benefit of avoiding New York or Boston. Two, even with Daisuke, Cubs would only have a reliable rotation two-deep. Offense is still rather soft. Contractual issues with Ramirez would have to resolved quickly. Last point -- and this is personal -- I'd love the opportunity to watch him pitch everygame.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) The other value of a guy like Alou is that he's a free agent. We've thinned our depth by trying to always build through trades. I think this offseason the Sox would be well-advised to strengthen through free agency. Completely forget about him. There's my DH if Thome were ever traded. Not to boil Dorf's blood; I don't expect him to be traded, either. Just suggesting if he were, what I'd prefer over Jason's scenario.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) The rotation would currently consist of our remaining 5 (as no starters have been dealt) and Thome salary has pretty much gone to Crawford and the other outfielder. So now you ask how does that really help the team? Well we now have Brian Anderson, top prospetcs from the Thome trade (in fact Figgins and a couple top prospects could probably be a fair deal w/LAA), and front of the rotation starters who we can deal. Possibly Josh Fields as well (depending on where the Sox stand with Crede). I'd like to think that with that the club would have the flexibility to move one of our starters for a major league ready young starter or we could also have the chips to go get a Jake Peavy or another young starter to enter into our rotation (if we deem it necessary). This is where I completely differ from your opinion. Not necessarily trading Thome, but keeping the current rotation entact. Personally, I don't think Williams can reasonably allow 40% of his rotation to leave for FA without ANY compensation. We need a reasonable return for either Buehlre or Garcia. Who exactly replaces either pitcher? You mention how the money saved could be used to obtain replacements, but it's not going to be that simple. Likely, we'll have to sign extended contracts or overpay midseason (again) for another starter. It ultimately depends on how the 2008 SP market looks. Another suggestion was using prospects from Thome (among ours) to obtain a starter. Well, this completely depends on the package an opposing team offers. Include Figgens, as you cited, those other two prospects likely won't be the quality we'd hope for. I'd like to expect another general manager to adopt a Williams philosophy and overpay for our players, but of course, that never happens. I'd prefer a trade of Thome for pitching prospects; trade of Garcia/Buehrle/Vazquez for even more pitching prospects; acquisition of Roberts and an additional bullpen arm; then inserting McCarthy into the rotation. Afterwards we sit completely still. No f***ing around with an already potent lineup. At which point, similar to your scenario, we're still without a DH yet maintain a large collection of pitching prospects and McCarthy. From this point, then, you may trade prospects accordingly before 2008. Fix whichever areas of the team need an upgrade. This would only be possible because the minor league system may possess several quality SP prospects. One/two would be expendable. Young pitching is always at a premium.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 11:08 PM) Where ethnic/societal/social differences remain, sure, many of the underlying conflicts that lead to war would remain. But erasing the further sociocultural subdivisions caused by religious differences would eliminate many of those differences. Certainly it's only armchair speculation and will always remain so, as organized religion is not going anywhere. And your point that humans always seem to find something to kill each other over is well taken. I personally find the issue a focal point of an increasingly vocal group of athiests who seemingly regard themselves as superior to those who believe in organized religion. It's their condescending tone which I find unbearable to follow. To be fair, because I'm not a religious man myself, those who preach the gospel and reference it in everyday life deserve just as much criticism. It's annoying to continually read the argument because first, it's completely unrealistic to expect; and second, it's within our genetics as any other personality trait. How else is it possible for countless cultures dating back thousands of years and equally great distances to each worship higher beings? Since the Neanderthals were first burying their dead and grasping an explanation for it there was probably an inclination to wonder whether they're in another place. People will always kill other people is a rather simplistic belief, yes, but murder is no more primitive than anything else we engage in. It equals out in my mind because -- in such an imaginary 'utopia-- for every terrorist act not committed, or innocent person not murdered for praying to the wrong God, there's someone butchering another because they realize no one is watching over them. I'm sure there are individuals out there tttthhhiiiis close to committing and crime if it weren't for their religious beliefs. Most likely, the closest we'll come to such an athiest-paradise is educatation advancements reaching those within impoverished nations. Perhaps by contacting people who are more willing to adopt religious beliefs (ie: poor, sickly), they'll eventually come to their own conclusions from reading textbooks. Whether to reinforce their current positions or adopt others.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 12:19 AM) And I still see no reasoning against trading McCarthy and Sweeney for Crawford, and then trading one of the other starters for pitching prospects. It can very easily be done. I'm not entirely against the scenario you, as well as Chisoxfn, suggested. I just believe if we were to obtain a prospect capable of reasonably matching or exceeding McCarthy's value, Vazquez would be the pitcher traded. Even then, is anyone aside from Minaya willing to overpay for Javier? This would really be the only condition for trading him. Entering next season with Buehrle and Garcia in contract seasons, questionable healthy status of Contreras, and Garland as perhaps the most consistent is worrisome. If we're obtaining a pitching prospect for Vazquez (or whomever else), he better be DAMN good; and ready to pitch next season. No projects. I just don't see everything running together for us. We'll receive less than we want for a starter, while depleting our system for Crawford. Watch, whichever team Williams trades a starter he'll have the other team pay the remaining salary. Thus, in return, we'll receive pure crap. Afterwards, a delightful package of McCarthy/Sweeney/Oneli Perez will be offered for Crawford and some scrub catching prospect.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 08:37 PM) That is either really, really smart or really, really dumb. Flip a coin? Obviously it's incredibly smart. That goes without quesiton. How many successful seasons were produced under Frank Thomas? A player whose best season will likely outshine anything Crawford does. Those past White Sox teams, aside from 93-94, were ultimately doomed due to ineffective pitching staffs. McCarthy holds more value to me personally because his presence is more crucial to our immediate success. If we're intent on continuing this 'window of opportunity,' it'd be essential to hold onto our pitching talent. Reinforcing again I don't care whether Crawford 'may' become a HOF, because ultimately, we'll not reaching another championship without solid starting pitchign. Which I believe McCarthy provides.

South Park had a relevant episode concerning this issue. It was rather good. I recommend everyone watches it. Funny, too, that the ending of the episode was based off my exact belief that removing religion --a point which many argue the world would be better without -- would merely be substituted with athiests fighting one another.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 07:07 PM) Crawford is a no miss. However, after some thought we have to think about the future of this rotation. Lets say we trade McCarthy for Crawford. What happens after 2007, when Buerhle and Garcia enter free agency? Then there is two critical holes in our rotation. I know we are all in a 'win now' state of mind, but it may be smarted long and short term to just do this: Trade Pods, Uribe and Garcia to Texas for Michael Young and a reliever. Sign Pierre to a 2 year deal. Plug in BMac into our rotation. I agree with the initial paragraph. The trade scenario, however, wouldn't even be completed over a telephone because the receiver would have been hung up. I'll continue revert back to the concept of compensating production across a diamond. Crawford's obviously a better ballplayer than any option currently on our roster or within our minor league system. There's no denying this. However, even considering his reasonable salary, upgrades across CF/LF/SS could easily net similar results. Not necessarily in stolen bases, but overall production. I understand it's a rather crude principle for assessing value, but considering how poorly Podsednik/Uribe/Anderson were -- and how our offense STILL produced -- even slight improvements would be beneficial to our club. Is it worth trading Sweeney/McCarthy to experience a more potent offense when it was hardly the problem last season? I honestly don't care whether Crawford may be a future hall of famer. Offense shouldn't be our primary issue this offseason. Efforts should be put forth to gradually replace the rotation God assembled. Worry about offense when we're not possessing two 40 HR players, two 30 HR players, and 6 starters at or exceeding a .280 avg. I wasn't a fan of acquiring Dave Roberts, but if his arrival means Crawford isn't a possibility --and I don't have to hear trade scenarios involving McCarthy anymore-- I'm his number one fan.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 02:46 PM) I'd trade McCarthy for Crawford in a heartbeat. Crawford has Hall of Fame potential, and McCarthy isn't a "can't miss" prospect. Considering we're scouting young pitchers around baseball, I'll take my chances with KW finding some young arms for this team. So the rotation remains the same then, right?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 02:08 PM) If I understadn the deal correctly, Vazquez only has 1 more guaranteed year on his contract as well, and 2008 is an option year...an expensive option also. Such that the White Sox may find some benefit in actually moving him instead of having no choice but to pick up something like a $12 million option for a 5th starter. I'd be willing to take a risk with Vazquez. If the language of his contract is how you described it, then it may essentially be a 1yr deal in 2008. If we're paying him 12 million, it'll be because there are no better options; or his 2007 season would have made him worth the investment. If we're intent on seriously contending, we need someone of his abilities anchoring this rotation. Especially in any potential playoff series. He atleast possesses the abillity to dominate a lineup, even if it's for five innings. Come next season and Sox management is disappointed again with Javier, then he'll option will be denied and whichever package Garcia gave us is ready to perform. The alternative scenario is trading Vazquez to the Mets for a pitching-heavy package, leaving Garcia to finish 2007 with us, then hoping Mets/White Soxpitching prospects decide the vacant spot the proceding season. I wouldn't honestly mind trading Vazquez is someone is willing to overpay. The problem is, I know Williams is more concerned with competing next season than looking beyond it. With this (probable) knowledge, you have to figure what's best for this club now. What really separates the two in my view is both the potential to succeed and contract status. Overpaying Vazquez for one season (08) may give several prospects an additional year of work, which would avoid inserting them into the rotation. Or trading/signing another starting pitcher. Ultiamtely, while we may HOPE for Garcia's shoulder to heal, but we're aware Vazquez's problems are mechanical and mental. Easier to correct those issues than hoping Garcia regains 5 mph on his fastball. With the question marks concerning the other pitchers within our rotation, I'd feel more comfortable with the knowledge someone in our rotation possesses ace-material stuff. Which, as previously mentioned, is pivotal for a playoff series. QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) Actually he's arbitration eligible after this season due to demanding the trade last offseason. So we control his rights until after the 08 season. If only I had seen your post, then I may have occupied the last 15 minutes of my life with something more useful.

I wish I could locate the Crawford thread and copy/paste my thoughts. But, because I'm too lazy -- and Rowand has already mentioned one of my points -- I'll say this: anyone evaluating talent and constructing a winning ballclub should favor SP over an OF. Even one as talented as Crawford. Offensive production can be compensated across a diamond. Honestly, if Williams trades Crawford for McCarthy (among other pieces) it'll be obvious to me Guillen runs the show. No reasonably intelligent GM can look at our rotation and minor league system, then think to themself -- "well, trading McCarthy for an OF seems about right. Even though the White Sox system has possible LF replacements, and there's practically no one reliable to fill in for the current starters once they reach FA."

Yeah, I only assumed steroids. Hasn't been confirmed officially, but it likely will.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_r...sp&c_id=mlb

Here's the dilemma dealing with Minaya -- he'll likely demand Vazquez for a significant package. Anyone seriously believe Williams would trade him when you consider Garcia's impending FA status? It either comes down to New York paying more for an additional year of Javier, or paying less for one season Garcia. All extension talk aside. Only condition I'd consider trading Vazquez is if Heilman AND Pelfrey are included. If we're losing one of our best pitchers, it better be worthwhile. Minaya doesn't like it he can overpay for Zito or offer less for Garcia and negotiate an extension.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) that's kind of funny, yet I'm sure you, like most of us, enjoy the fact that your woman takes birth control pills that have documented side effects... I wouldn't blame a woman for refusing. I've never forced it onto anyone before, even prior to recent concerns of long term health issues. Not that I was envoking radical Christian beliefs towards concraceptive treatment, but rather, just thinking about it from a biological standpoint--something as important as reproduction shouldn't be tampered with. Even with the risks, the pill isn't fullproof.

Controlling sperm production without effecting testosterone levels AND avoiding 'unwanted' side effects? My ass. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking these even if were deemed completely safe.

I was about to say -- judging from the title alone-- if they don't have those damn green seats completely installed by next seasons first game, then the construction companies involved deserve to be fired. I like the idea of seats commemorating Konerko and Podsednik's respective HR's. Hopefully, Podsednik will have to view it as a visitor or on television.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) Let me start by saying the I am not advocating the introduction of aluminum bats. But something needs to happen with the bats to decrease the number of broken bats. I can never remember a season that had so many broken bats as this past year. Several came close to players and coaches but I also remember a few into the stands. It is just dumb luck that someone hasn't gotten hurt or worse. MLB should address this with manufacturers. Thicker handles? I don't know. But something should be done before a player, or God forbid, a fan in the stands gets hurt. Discuss... Honestly, how often does a broken bat enter the stands? I understand splinters of a broken bat may have jagged edges, but it's also flying at a substantially slower speed than if someone were to lose grip during their swing. That's what I've seen more often than not, is someone losing grip of the barrel and hurling their bat -- full strength -- into the crowd. It won't matter what the composition of the bat is in these instances.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) Looks like its not an actual channel, but more of a free horror movie source for Comcast OnDemand subscribers. Looks like I'm in luck.

If anyone has watched AMC these last few weeks they've likely seen the previews for an upcoming horror movie channel called "Fear Net." I'm not sure how many fans of the genre reside on Soxtalk, but I find it difficult to locate a decent horror movie on any given day -- even with 500 channels. It would be a welcomed change from the current substitute of Encore Mystery. What concerns me about FearNet is whether this is part of a subscriber package, and ultimately, how much will it cost? I doubt it'll be a free service. The entire network is shrouded in mystery, it seems. The website (fearnet.com) doesn't devulge any information; neither does their myspace webpage. Google doesn't seem to be much of a help. I'm clueless as the manner in which it's going to be launched tomorrow. Anyone have information on this?

I celebrated Willie Harris Day this morning by taking a huge crap. I feel I've done my part to honor him.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) What's the big deal bringing him back around $2 million? I didn't realize he was that effective against right handers as well Aside from what Balta said, two million could make a noteable difference when you consider the raises players across the team will receive. Such an amount may be the deciding factor in drawing a FA to our ballclub.

I wouldn't be upset with Riske's departure. He was keen to hanging his breaking ball during crucial moments of a game. However, Williams realistically has to obtain (via trade) or require atleast one more reliable arm. What's going to be pitiful to observe is the competition for the lone relief position in spring training. You know we're going to enter March with one spot available, and all the usual talk will begin of "low risk, high reward" AAAA fodder attempting to make the team. We'll all have to endure the typical cast of characters: 35 year old in the twilight of his career, 26 year old recovering from surgery -- yet hasn't regained previous velocity, 28 year old reject from team with bullpen issues, and a collection of minor league talent from our organization. Ultimately, it'll be a huge, steaming pile of cow dung. Can't wait!

I'm definitely not a fan of signing Roberts. We're supposedly going for it; acknowledging a window of opportunity only extends as far as our rotation, yet we're in negotiations with Dave Roberts as a "stop gap" solution in LF? It wouldn't irritate me if the difference between Roberts and Podsednik weren't so minimal. I don't acknowledge "intagibles" such as veteran experience or a likelihood of accepting Ozzieball, either. I believe any gain earned is minimal. Might as well hold onto Podsednik. Honestly, how does this improve our ballclub? Look at the roster, people: LF may be one of the few positions Williams can realistically improve. SS and CF are the only other viable areas for improvement, but it's not clear whether Anderson or Uribe are at risk of losing their jobs. I'm not suggesting Williams run out and spend a large sum of money to reinforce our "win-now" attitude. I understand personnel decisions don't necessarily have to be flashy or expensive to prove successful. But Dave Roberts?! As I suggested in another thread, a RH platoon player would prove more useful. Such a move would force Guillen not to misuse Mackowiak in CF.

I don't like the idea of singing Catallanato for several reasons: one, I doubt he'll come cheap; and two, as 3e8 mentioned, Frank doesn't solve our problem against LHP. This is crucial when you consider the collection of quality lefties within our division. Even Dave Roberts doesn't do anything for me. If I had to guess, it's the influence of Guillen here requesting Williams find a lefthanded bat with speed. It shouldn't matter. Why substitute Podsednik for a more expensive, older version of himself? If it were my decision, I'd search for a RH bat to platoon with Mackowiak in LF. Even if it were via trade, I believe acquiring the proper player could significantly improve our chances against LHP.