Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 12:02 AM) The difference between us trading for Garcia and the Rangers trading for Garland is that the Sox knew that they would be able to sign Freddy to a contract extension due to the Ozzie/Garcia connection. The Rangers would have no such insurance in trading for Garland. He would probably still test free agency and look to sign with a west coast team. Texas should contact Garland and ask him about possibly working out a contract, because I wouldn't relinquish from the request of a top prospect. I have a feeling Garland doesn't care where he pitches as long as the particular team pays him. We're not in the position of desperately needing to unload a player. Texas desperately needs pitching. If Texas doesn't want to accept the deal, I'd move on. Our goal should be the best return package for Garland, not receiving midlevel crap in return. It's insulting when you lay out the foundation for a trade, and all you can get for Garland is a measly midlevel prospect. If Texas had a stud reliever they were willing to trade I wouldn't mind. But since it's unlikely a reliever is delt, a prospect must go.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 09:44 PM) I really don't think it will be either of these guys. Lets stop dreaming. It will be a lower level guy. Look I realize everyone here thinks garland is great but his value is lower because he has one year left. it will play out in a week or two. I still think another team will enter in the picture. If Texas isn't willing to include one of their top prospects--pitching or not, they can remain in their perpetual pitching rut. f*** them. I'm not giving up Garland unless a top tier prospect is returned. Blalock's addition in the trade doesn't bother me, since Uribe could always play 3B if no options were found to replace Crede. It's the value of Garland, and what teams such as Texas are offering, which concerns me. No way in hell should Jon Garland only give us a lower level prospect, one year rental or not. I'll repeat this--if Garcia cost us Reed(our top prospect)/Morse/Olivo, MIDSEASON, during a contract year, it's not too unreasonable to ask for one of Texas.' I can't believe Texas would trade for Garland and only use him for one year, considering the crap they have. Or ask yourself this-- If Williams were trading Blalock/prospect for Garland/Crede, who here wouldn't bet the prospect in question would be one of our best? He'd give up the top prospect and we'd tell ourselves, "have to give up something to get something." "Prospects are just that--prospects." "We HAD to overpay so other teams couldn't get him."

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 09:20 PM) KW is very smart and I think either way we can't lose! We can lose with Baltimore. If Orioles are demanding Ramirez AND additional prospects it's going to take more than Garland/Uribe to pry Tejada from the East Coast. For once, I'd like for this organization to be in a position to have another team overpay for our players. We don't even need to trade Garland immediately. Wait until Milwood and the remaining Boras client signs with their teams. Then we'll see how desperate Baltimore, Texas, and other clubs are for pitching when divisional teams are improving while they're staying pat. SOMEONE has to overpay. That's my goal with Garland. Even if we receive outfield talent, which obviously isn't necessary, I want Williams to extract the most in return from him. Be greedy instead of fair, for once. At worst, we have a completed rotation with a more than suitable replacement (McCarthy) available.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 09:03 PM) Garland and Crede for Blalock and a pitching prospect makes the most sense. We would lose Garland after 2006 anyways and you know KW and Reinsdorf want to get rid of their last remaining Boras client. Blalock would be under an inexpensive deal for 3 or 4 years. Bruce Levine on ESPN 1000 right now. I'd have no probelm with merely a pitching prospect and Blalock if the pitching prospect were top tier. Atleast within the Top 20 in the league. Are Diamond or Danks either of these? Can we project either of these two to enter our rotation (or bullpen) by 2007? In my mind, top pitching prospects within the Texas Rangers organization doesn't do much. The same title for the Dodgers, however, is quite different. I'd rather trade Garland to LA for two quality prospects (one Guzman, ideally), leave Crede on our club for this year, and worry about a replacement 3B in 2007.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:47 PM) Yeah, we are talking about it in the other Garland thread. The Rangers also have a couple highly rated starting pitching prospects in John Danks and Thomas Diamond. They could include one of those two guys. Browsing Google for information relaing to those two, both are currently in the Rangers AA affiliate. Unless we're considering moving either to bullpen use, they'd be useless this season. I can imagine either would start the season at AAA. Which is fine, but unfortunately we'd still have two open bullpen positions. Is there even a AAA pitcher on the Rangers that is worthy of being included alongside Blalock in any deal for Garland/Crede? I would believe if there were a AAA pitcher succeeding Texas would hold onto them.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:37 PM) You have to factor in that Garland will only be under their control for one season and Crede will be a free agent soon after. Blalock has a cheap 3-year contract with a 4th year option. Regardless, we're trading two proven major league commodoties for another proven player and a prospect. Unless either of those pitchers are can't misses, they better include another mid-level player. You have to ask yourself if they were highly touted, and Texas having the pitching problems they do, why would they entertain trading either? Must mean either they're several years away, or they're that desperate for pitching as to give up a can't miss prospect for Garland.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:32 PM) Rangers get: Jon Garland Joe Crede White Sox get: Hank Blalock John Danks OR Thomas Diamond In addition, they can add in another mid-level prospect.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:11 PM) Did he say they were discussing it or did he just say it made sense? Cause he just threw it out there on sc saying it would make sense. He did say it made sense, but his body language appeared to indicate some disapproval with the trade proposal. As if he was suggesting, "well, It sort of makes sense. FOR TEXAS." I'm not familiar with Texas' farm system, but for Garland AND Crede we better be receiving their top prospect. Whether that's a pitching or hitting prospect, we need their best player.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) I had mine pulled the summer going into senior year; it wasn't too bad. It all depends on whether or not the tooth has pushed through the gumline. The other tooth of mine extracted this afternoon didn't hurt, and took merely 10 seconds to remove. After today, I've had all four removed. I assumed entering the dentist office the tooth located beneath the gums would be no different than the others. Which is why I objected to anesthesia.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) Damn...I have to get my wisdom teeth pulle soon. I'm scared as s***. Are any of your wisdom teeth located below the gums? If so, you may want to consider anesthesia. Personally, I didn't like the idea; but if I had to have another tooth removed below my gumline, I'd do it without question. It's just not a pleasant experience hearing your tooth and gum line sawed apart while whincing in pain.

I had the most painful experience of my life earlier this afternoon. Two wisdom teeth were extracted; one from beneath my gums, the other a fully exposed tooth. Despite the application of novocaine, the pressure my dentist applied onto my jawline for the extraction of the burrowed tooth was nearly unbearable. Imagine a prolonged stabbing feeling extending from your jaw through the top of your ear. Using a McBaine voice, THE NOVOCAINE DID NOTHING. It couldn't have been more than 2 minutes in total, but it felt like an eternity. Didn't help matters once the tooth was jossled loose from my gums, the dentist used a saw to slice an section of my gums to remove the tooth. I had the sense it was going to be a painful recovery period when Vikatan was prescribed.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:12 PM) At least 2 bags of Honey Roasted Peanuts? Yet, if Williams were to trade for Garland under similiar circumstances, it'd be for 2 bags of Honey Roasted Peanuts, a stick of beer jerkey, and our highly touted chewing gum.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:59 PM) Garland is essentially a one year rental, unless he's traded to some team where he'll sign an extension, or at the least be very willing to consider one. That has the Dodgers written all over it. They could possibly trade for Garland and work out a contract. If the White Sox are able to pull off a Garland/Uribe deal for Miguel Tejada, KW should be executive of the year 2006 in advance. Meaning, Garland's value is as a one year starter as it stands right now. If Williams was willing to give up Reed/Morse/Olivo for Garcia, midseason, in his contract year, there's no excuse for Garland netting us junk. I'd request a package similar to the Garcia deal, in the sense we'd be receiving one major league player and two prospects. If not LA, as you speculate, there has to be some team out there desperate for pitching yet not willing to commit a sizable contract. Isn't it about time for an organization to overpay for one of our players? Let's whore Garland for our advantage. It's obvious he's not going to be here, anyways.

Arizona willing to pay 8 million of Vazquez's remaining contract certaintly makes this deal more reasonable. That still, as of now, leaves questions concerning Garland's future with this club and our bullpen situation. Browsing through another thread, it appeared (from Williams' comments) immiment Garland would be delt. While the concept of situating McCarthy in the bullpen as a insurance policy may appear feasible to some, I don't believe Williams will set him there. All I ask of Williams is to receive a good package for Garland. Don't pull the undervauling-of-a-player-in-order-to-have-money-available-for- another-signing/trade, trade.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) We can't just throw someone out there because the fans want to see him if our management doesn't think he's fully ready. McCarthy already has three pitches. He doesn't need to develop anymore. And here's the idea about McCarthy in the bullpen--it won't be because management doesn't believe he's "fully ready," but rather, because of the possibility of injury many here are alluding to. How the hell could you conclude he's not ready after the manner in which he ended the season? You give your kidney McCarthy isn't the best starter next year, and I'll give my kidney if Garland is even pitching in a White Sox uniform.

1. Dotel. Sign him, rehab him, bring him back midseason. 2. Use Garland to bring the Sox several relief pitchers. Dodgers could give us quite the package, which may include several good pitching prospects. Not sure whether or not they're looking for starting pitching, but I'd rather give him to a team stocked with pitching in the National League, on the West Coast, where there's a strong possbility he'll resign.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:09 AM) Our time to repeat is mainly in 2006 and 2007. It makes sense to go for it. We won't have Garland, Contreras, Buehrle, and Garcia forever. And 2008? Will baseball not exist then? We're not going to outbid anyone for a quality pitcher on the market. Continue to trade pitching and positional prospects season after season, eventually you're going to trade the wrong one and regret it. Our team is becoming expensive. This offseason, it appears we're giving ourselves too many opportunities to regret a certain move. We need more than McCarthy to advance through the system. In a few years, one of the two scenarios need to occur: continued success for the club to support a higher payroll, thus paying hiking salary of players accordingly; and two, several prospects contributing on the team, which gives the club financial flexibility in other areas. Anderson, Cotts, Jenks, McCarthy is a good start. Winning a World Series obviously helps as well. I just feel our current stock of minor league talent will not be available to contribute in 2007, 2008, when their presence could be beneficial. If the winning subsides, it'd be nice to count on a talent influx.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 03:35 AM) That's actually starting to make quite a bit of sense. I guess it depends on whether the Phillies can sign a set-up man like Brandon Looper. If they do, Ryan Madson moves into the rotation and they don't need a starter. If they can't, then suddenly the trade market is a big option for them. I'd love Abreu, but let's just speculate what it would take: Garland + McCarthy? Garland + Cotts? Garland + Anderson + prospect? Does anyone believe it would cost anything less then the scenarios listed above? We're in no position to deal for Abreu. Our system has been drastically weakened this offseason. There aren't many trading chips left which allow us to forsake their services and yet still have SOME hope for the future. We're running thin on pitching and outfielders.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 03:16 AM) i thought it was going to be announced next week and we were gonna be the ones giving up the cash what gives?!??!?!!? You were listening to Shambala by Three Dog Night? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

QUOTE(Stocking @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:52 AM) So garland for a reliever straight up. better be gagne. No, although I appeared to suggest that. In addition to any player(s), there will be atleast one reliever to offset trading Vizcaino/Marte.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:37 AM) You wanted him to be criticized after the deadline as well for only trading for Blum and we all know how that turned out. Just let the guy do his thing, no offense flash but I think he knows a little bit more then you and I. You even said before you wouldn't judge any of Kenny's moves before knowing what comes after, yet you seem already to jump all over him for this. You seem to like bashing him for some reason. I said Williams moves are typically ones which present themselves gradually then from one trade. I never said anything about holding judgement until they're done. Or else I'd never say anything about any trade because 6 months from now a player I objected to obtaining may prove me wrong. I can stil judge individual trades for their value. I should give him benefit of doubt, but it's difficult when seemingly every offseson move involves us overpaying for players, whereas undervaluing our own talent.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:33 AM) If the Sox want to have 12 pitchers then fine, I'd honestly have no problem with Baj getting that 12th slot as long as one other quality reliever is brought in. I would have a problem with Baj. He gave up a HR to Hafner last season which is still orbiting Earth. Baj is a two pitch pitcher with neither pitch being very good. I'd only accept his role as mopup if the quality pitcher we received was an absolute stud. But here's the problem: any quality reliever obtained by the Sox would have to be from a trade. None of the free agent pitches are suitable replacements. Well, now I ask who would be our trade bait? Which player is expendable? This person would have to be good enough to net a quality reliever in return. Garland is the person . And if you trade Garland, receive your bullpen arm, it now pushes McCarthy back into the rotation. Now you have ANOTHER open spot in the bullpen. I believe Williams exposed one division of an upcoming move by including Vizcaino. Garland will be traded for, at the least, one reliever capably of substituting Viz or Marte.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:23 AM) First, I'm sure you mean Garland, not Garcia. As I said in a PM recently, I honestly liked the health of the Sox franchise better 24 hours ago than I do right now. Flash....I don't think that Arizona is going to pay any of Vazquez's deal. KW is really, really overpaying here. Yeah, I fixed that problem. Typed too quickly and didn't bother to proofread before I posted. I'll hold out hope the financial details of the trade have yet to be released. We didn't know Vizcaino was included until nearly two hours after intitial news surfaced. If Arizona truly isn't paying ANY portion of Vazquez's deal, then Williams deserves to be heavily criticized. World Series or not, you still have to be a sensible general manager. EDIT: I didn't notice the link posted above by SSH. Until the exact figures are released, I'll hold judgement.

Trading Vizcaino, Young, Hernandez for Vazquez ALONE?! This is ridiculous. Arizona better be eating a LARGE portion of his salary. I'd rather have traded Garland. Atleast we'd have two capable bullpen arms in Hernandez and Vizcaino. Williams better have a deal situated. One which nets one, possibly two, bullpen arms in return. He may still pull of a trade which addresses these concerns, but as of now, our bullpen is in complete shambles. I If it's not obvious Williams is trading Garland now, I don't know what is. I have to believe he wouldn't deal Vizcaino if there wasn't an option out there for a replacement. Although I did mention the same phrase after Marte's departure, and to this moment, he has yet to be replaced either.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:46 AM) I like my pitching staff to be deep. Without McCarthy we have no insurance just in case 1 memeber of the staff goes down. It's not smart to assemble a rotation with a fully capable starting pitcher in the bullpen. Sure, it speaks to your depth, but it also removes a valuable contributer from performing his full capabilities. I don't believe Guillen will find McCarthy consistent work. Especially with a rotation renowned for consistently pitching into the 7th inning or later. Let's narrow down the opportunities for Mac to pitch: Buehlre and Garland are workhorses, Garcia puppeters Guillen, Vazquez will probably do the same as Garcia, Contreras--who knows. McCarthy is not giving the team his full potential working out of the bullpen. Pitchers are in the bullpen for a reason. If they had more than 2 pitches, or endurance, they'd be starters. As 3e8 eluded to, we're essentially keeping him down. Why, again? Are we keeping him in the bullpen solely for insurance? Doesn't sound right for Mac. It all doesn't matter to speculate, anyways. Garland will be in another uniform come spring training.