VAfan

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:13 PM) he was beyond terrible at the plate in May and August. he was A-W-F-U-L. in May he batted .155; in August he hit .103 (thats 6-for-58). so in May/August he hit .133, and the rest of the season he hit .310. last year I predicted he'd go for .280-25-80, and if he would have had just a normal slum in those two months (you know, something in the .200-.220 area, which is still bad) he'd have delivered and made me look smarter. good news is Crede hit .379 in September, and .289 in the playoffs, so it wouldn't be a stretch for Crede to have a big year. That's my view too, which is why I argued in an earlier thread that the Sox should try to sign Crede to a 3-year deal, BEFORE he becomes a consistent hitter. We signed Mackowiak to a multi-year deal though he was arb-eligible. Same with AJ. Apply the same rationale with Crede. Even though he has Boras as his agent, if Crede does have a break-out year offensively, even if the Sox signed Boras's 3-year demand it would be less than his demand will be for next year's arbitration. But, because Crede can't go anywhere until 2009!, and Boras's demands will seem very unreasonable if Crede only repeats his offensive trends (or gets hurt), it is unlikely a deal will be made. If Crede can lay off the outside breaking pitches (or take those in the zone the other way), which he was doing after he came off the DL, the guy could do .280-30-95, especially if they hit him 6th in the lineup behind Paul Konerko and Jim Thome. (I'd put Dye third, where he was during our season-ending 16-1 streak.)

I'm glad to see that most of the recent posters to this thread agree that Vazquez, as of right now, cannot be considered better than JC, MB, JG, or FG, especially since he's coming in from the NL into a HR park (he gave up 65 HRs the last two years). Certainly we all hope that Cooper can bring him back closer to his Montreal levels, but I'd be shocked if he can get his ERA below 4.00 in the Cell. What I wanted to add, however, is a link to a Philly.com article today about an Abreu-for-pitching deal possibly happening in the middle of next year. I've excerpted the relevant parts. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/13596113.htm If you think the Phillies' pitching hasn't improved in this off-season, you aren't alone. Pat Gillick agrees.... "The one area that we've been trying to focus on... is our pitching," Gillick said. "And that's the area we haven't improved, both the front end and the back end."... "The type of person that we're looking for - and they're hard animals to find - is a No. 1 or No. 2 starter," Gillick said.... Gillick reiterated yesterday that the most likely route for obtaining a quality starter would come via a trade. Rightfielder Bobby Abreu is considered the obvious candidate. *************************** In mid-July next year, unless Vazquez improves a lot more than I expect he will, I'd be more than willing to trade Vazquez for Abreu, especially if the Phillies were willing to eat $4-6 million of his $16 million 2007 contract total. Of course, our other starters and McCarthy would all have to be healthy and we'd also likely have to have signed Contreras to an extension. If you think about it, who is going to be able to offer the Phillies a better pitcher than Vazquez for Abreu, and who is also going to want Abreu for their team? I can't think of a team. For us, however, Abreu would be a great fit - Venezuelan, with some speed, perfect #3 hitter, lefty bat, huge offensive upgrade over Anderson and better offensively than any of our outfielders. By midseason, having that 6th starter (who likely won't have much of a postseason role) will have less value than boosting our offensive production. But until then, it is probably better to have the pitching depth.

Three points: 1. Pitching depth is critical for the regular season; pitching quality is critical for the postseason. For example, Mark Buehrle is very consistent in the regular season, but he's not a #1 postseason guy. In two out of his 3 starts, he would have been beaten if Jose Contreras or Freddie Garcia was on the other side. Because Contreras is a quality #1 guy, we absolutely need him if the Sox want to make it to another World Series next year. Slotting Contreras #1 means our 2-4 guys are likely to have the advantage over their opponents' starters. If you took out Contreras and made our #2 (Buehrle) go against their #1, etc., our biggest advantage would be neutered. Give me last year's top 4 guys and I think we can beat the Yankees' new murderers' row lineup. Take out Contreras at the top and put Vazquez in at #4 and I think we'll get beaten in 5 or 6 games. 2. Anyone here think Javier Vazquez is a better pitcher than Contreras, Garcia, Buehrle, or Garland? Anyone even take him over Brandon McCarthy? If you want to challenge the premise of the post, you have to step forward and make the case that Vazquez is better than one of those guys. 3. I'd be willing to let Brandon McCarthy slide in and take Vazquez's place in mid-season next year, but I think it's risky believing a guy with his light frame can go a full season in the rotation at his age without going down with an injury. There have been a lot of Bobby Abreu rumors on this site. To me, the time to trade for Abreu may well be this coming July, when he might be had for nothing more than Javier Vazquez (if the Phillies want to rebuild). If Brian Anderson is struggling (or Dye or Pods are hurt), that would be a trade that could help balance the Sox' lineup. So, we'll see what happens. Whether or not Jose takes the Sox' extension offer, I believe we'll go to spring training and into the season with our 6 main starters. And I think that's the best choice the Sox can make.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) I am curious to see how the batting order will play out. It seems like the only slots that are pretty much locks are #1 and #4. There is a pretty big difference between the #3 and #5 slots, so that will be interesting to see how it plays out. It would almost seem better to sandwich Thome in between Paulie and Dye to provide a nice R - L - R punch, but it looks like it is going to be either Dye-Paulie-Thome or Thome-Paulie-Dye. I think a case can be made either way. My point about Dye is that he'll draw more walks hitting 3rd than if he hits 5th or later, thus increasing his hitting value, while I think Thome will be the same hitter in any slot. Plus, hitting Thome behind Paulie will force him to continue being selective, knowing that if he walks, Thome could hit a 3-run dinger behind him. It is also possible to hit Dye 3rd against lefties but drop him against righties, with Thome moving up. I'd leave Konerko hitting cleanup when he's in there, but wouldn't hesitate to move other guys. As Juggernaut points out, however, the key may be Uribe in the #2 hole.

As a stat fan, I applaud the work you have done Juggernaut. And I totally agree with some of your conclusions (though I have been ripped elsewhere for posting them). "They have tasted victory by having the best rotation in baseball." "They will sacrifice lumber before they will sacrifice pitching." I certainly hope this is true, which is why I kept posting against the view that KW should dump Jon Garland or Jose Contreras in any number of trades. Give me Contreras, especially, as a postseason horse, and I think the Sox match up fine with the Yankees. I also find your analysis regarding Juan Uribe very interesting. Hitting him #2, if he can learn to focus like he did in September and the postseason (where he was very patient and drew walks), could allow him to blossom into a tremendous hitter (and make Sox fans we glad we didn't pull off the rumored Tejada trade). Presumably he'll get more fastballs in the zone in this slot too, and he should crush those. As far as the lineup goes, I personally would prefer Ozzie to hit Thome 5th rather than 3rd, with Dye moving up to the 3 hole. I believe Dye was a more patient hitter when put in the 3rd slot at the end of the season and postseason, and you can't argue with the results. Dye was WS MVP, and the Sox scored 14, 5, 4, 2, 2, 5, 8, 6, 4, 7, 7, and 1 runs, winning 11 out of 12 games. With all the righties, it is also beneficial to have a lefty hitting in the middle of the lineup. I also think Joe Crede, if he continues where he left off after his disabled-list stint last year, could hit 6th. With Thome and Konerko on base so much but being slow, hitting Crede 6th takes maximum advantage of Crede's power. Iguchi's hit-and-run skills would be wasted here. That would slide Iguchi to 8th, perhaps an unreasonable "demotion," but with his speed, it would also allow the 8, 9, and 1 guys to try to manufacture runs. Lastly, I don't think KW will put McCarthy in AAA again unless he loses himself in spring training. He's on record as saying McCarthy should develop in the bullpen against major league hitters so I don't think that'll change. We also need the quality arm out there (and a long guy now that Javier Vazquez and his 11 poor outings are in the rotation). Then we only have to fill one slot from among minor league hopefuls Bajenaru, Tracey, et al. (It's also still possible KW will sign someone and carry 12 pitchers.) Again, great work Juggernaut.

Well, since I wasn't for Contreras/Uribe for Tejada, I'm certainly not for Contreras, Uribe, Sweeney and another prospect for Tejada. I think Contreras will sign an extension, and I'd much rather have him than Tejada in the postseason. Indeed, Contreras was the key to our entire postseason rotation. Not only was he more than a match for everyone he faced (his one loss stemmed from a fielding flaw, not a pitching flaw), but he set all the other matchups so the Sox had the advantage in those games too. Pitching, pitching, pitching ... is the key to the World Series. If the Sox were in Boston's shoes, without a major league SS on the roster, I might feel differently. But Uribe at 25 is not only better defensively than Tejada (9.3 win shares v. 6.1 win shares), but his bat has the potential to be 80% of Tejada's, as this baseball reference comparison shows. http://baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.c...=age&compage=25 Juan Uribe 2001-2005 5 594 2138 286 561 113 30 63 280 125 408 .262 .305 .432 32 21 82 932 Miguel Tejada 1997-2001 5 612 2286 368 587 119 11 95 367 196 393 .257 .324 .443 32 18 99 And as I pointed out on the other thread on this subject, in the postseason last year, Uribe hit better than Tejada has in every playoff series except his first one. My only other comment about the rumor is that it doesn't make sense. Why would the Sox offer MORE after Baltimore's other deals for Tejada fall apart?

QUOTE(quickman @ Jan 1, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) for many here its not about good business, its about who there favorite player is. Vasquez is five or six years younger than contraras and needs to visit the psych counselor once a month instead of weekly. For me it is all about the quality of the player. I didn't grow to love Frank Thomas because he was a nice guy. He was just the best hitter, BY FAR, to ever don a Sox uniform (Shoeless Joe included). But I understand why the Sox had to cut him loose this year. And, JimH, yes I believe that performance in baseball shows up in the stat sheets. In any other sport, stats don't mean that much, but in baseball, they mean a hell of a lot. Not everything. But it's pretty damn close. If you want to add character or performance under pressure as a measure, then that would just elevate Contreras another couple of steps in my mind. I'll grant you, he sure didn't seem to be that kind of pitcher in June of last year. But once he found his Cuban personna again, I don't think he's going to lose it for the rest of his career. Vazquez, on the other hand, seems to me like he's lost his way on the mound. 65 HRs in 2 years. Maybe he'll find his way again, and I hope so, and if he does, then I won't want to trade him. But until he proves it, he would be the guy I'd consider moving at the deadline if I the Sox have some major hole(s) to fill.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) Yeah, I watched the whole postseason and the parade. I also know how Williams and Reinsdorf like to run the franchise which is something you are still unable or unwilling to grasp. Tejada's postseason stats? Please, stop it. You can manipulate small samples any way you want. Tejada is arguably the top SS in the game. The point, which I will reiterate because you are unable to grasp it, is if Contreras indicates an unwillingness to sign an extension, the Sox will move him rather than lose him for nothing. If he signs, great, I love a deep pitching staff. If he won't sign, I want the best possible return. I suspect this is what Williams is thinking, again, I am trying to think along with him vs. what you do, which is throw out your opinion and ignore the way they do business. I'm not sure what your first point is. I said KW would try to re-sign Garland and that until they went to arbitration, there was time to work out a deal. You said he didn't want to play for the Sox but only wanted to go to the West Coast. Isn't that correct? I don't follow how you can continue to accuse me of being clueless. I know that KW and JR want to bring another WS championship to Chicago, and signing Contreras to an extension I believe is part of that plan. It is part of the plan because it makes the most sense. The point about Tejada isn't about small statistical samples. It is about whether a great pitcher is more valuable in the postseason than a position player. My point still stands and you've offered nothing to rebut it. Great pitchers are more reliable because they control the ball. That's why great pitching more often wins championships. In baseball the defense has the ball. Tejada can be shut down in the postseason, just like many other superstars - A-Rod was a perfect example this year. Great pitchers cannot really be shut down. It takes a rival great pitcher to beat them. Give me Contreras over Tejada straight up in every postseason from now until Contreras retires. This point is further hammered home by noting that hitters who are not great over the course of a season can nonetheless hit better than superstars do in the postseason. So, in the regular season, Tejada will outhit Uribe ten seasons out of ten. But in the postseason, Uribe hit better in 2005 than Tejada did in every postseason but Tejada's first try, in 2000. If Tejada were free and we could afford him, sure I'd take him over Uribe even in the postseason. But he's not free. Baltimore would demand starting pitching plus Uribe. That's not a trade that will help us build another World Series winning team. Finally, if Contreras doesn't sign an extension with the Sox this offseason, I'll be surprised. Right now the sides are posturing, just like the Konerko posturing or the Garland posturing. We'll see what happens.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 02:25 AM) Wow, talk about a bunch of assumptions. Why is it you believe Contreras loves it here, when it fits your viewpoint, but you didn't believe Garland preferred to play out west when it didn't fit your viewpoint? You doubt the Orioles would want Contreras at his age, even if he signed an extension? And you use that rationale to state the Sox don't need Tejada's offense to get back to the playoffs? Any more quantum leap assumptions you want to make? The bottom line is this, in case you haven't cracked the code yet: Williams wants cost certainty. If he can't get it, he will take players to market. Right now, that's Contreras, just like it was with Garland until he re-signed. These players are interested in what's best for them, God bless Garland for "presumably" taking less to stay in Chicago, hopefully that same scenario will work with Contreras. To say Tejada is not a proven postseason commodity is about as shorthsighted of an argument I've ever heard. Will you please throw out your complete bias on small sample stats? Stats can be manipultated any way you want, you are great at manipulating them to fit your opinion. We'll see whether Contreras signs an extension with the Sox. I believe he will. If you don't think he LOVES it here, then you didn't watch the postseason I watched. Do you want me to find the articles about how he finally felt comfortable with a manager who speaks his language, how he was reunited with his family while in Chicago, etc? I know baseball is a business, but I'd be shocked if Jose left of his own free will. My second point - that great pitchers are much more reliable in the postseason than great hitters - I think is borne out again and again. Contreras was a horse for us in the postseason - never giving up more than 3 runs in 4 starts, and taking us deep into all 4 of his games. Tejada, A-Rod, Barry Bonds earlier in his career, Frank and Maggs in 2000 - I'm sure I could find a lot of great hitters who went ice cold in October. So a trade of Contreras for Tejada, even straight up, would weaken us in October in my opinion. Pitching wins championships. Look how the Yankees have struggled since their pitching went south. As for stats - what part of Tejada's postseason line do you like? The guy never draws a walk. Juan drew 5 walks in the ALCS and WS, even though we all know that Juan is a free swinger. I'm not suggesting Juan is a better hitter than Tejada - if you read my post I said the opposite. I'm suggesting that it is probably not a good trade for the Sox to surrender one of their ace starters and Juan Uribe for Miguel Tejada if you are trying to build a team to win the World Series again. Over the course of a regular season, Tejada's runs created value would make the trade fair. But in the postseason, give me the great starter and the clutch-hitting great defensive shortstop.

It is worth checking out Tejada's postseason stats. He's been on a precipitous decline in production since his first postseason appearance in 2000. 2000 ALDS OAK NYY L 5 20 5 7 2 0 0 1 2 2 .350 .409 .450 1 0 0 0 0 2001 ALDS OAK NYY L 5 21 1 6 3 0 0 1 0 3 .286 .304 .429 0 0 0 1 1 2002 ALDS OAK MIN L 5 21 3 3 1 0 1 4 1 7 .143 .174 .333 0 0 0 1 0 2003 ALDS OAK BOS L 5 23 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 4 .087 .087 .130 0 0 0 0 0 Here are the cumulative totals. 4 Lg Div Series 0-4 20 85 9 18 7 0 1 8 3 16 .212 .242 .329 1 0 0 2 1 Meanwhile, Juan Uribe did very well in his one postseason. 2005 ALDS CHW BOS W 3 10 4 4 1 0 1 4 0 2 .400 .400 .800 0 0 ALCS CHW LAA W 5 16 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 3 .250 .333 .312 0 0 WS CHW HOU W 4 16 2 4 3 0 0 2 3 3 .250 .368 .438 1 0 And we all know how well Jose Contreras pitched for us. 2005 ALDS CHW BOS W 1 1 2.35 1-0 0 0 7.7 8 2 0 6 ALCS CHW LAA W 2 2 3.12 1-1 0 1 17.3 12 6 2 6 WS CHW HOU W 1 1 3.86 1-0 0 0 0 7.0 6 3 0 2 So here is how I feel about all the Tejada trade talk. I would agree that Tejada is a much better overall shortstop than Juan Uribe. Historically, his offense has been worth about 40 more runs a season than Uribe's. But if Baltimore were demanding Contreras, would this really be a good deal for the Sox? Perhaps, but ONLY if Contreras refused to re-sign with us, which I don't think he will do (he LOVES it here). In the postseason, there's no doubt in my mind that having Contreras and Uribe is much more valuable than having Tejada. After all, Uribe hit better in the 2005 postseason than Tejada has in 3 of his 4 postseason appearances. And there are a lot of other good hitters that have gone south in October. Compared to pitchers, they are not a reliable commodity in the postseason. That being said, I doubt the Orioles would really want Jose Contreras at his age, even if he were signed to an extension. They are more likely to want a young pitcher like McCarthy, plus Uribe, plus prospects. The problem with that deal as many have pointed out is that it saps the Sox of our pitching depth, which is very risky. And it adds significantly to the Sox' payroll. We don't really need Tejada's additional offense to recapture the AL Central. And he's not a proven postseason commodity, unlike any starter (except Vazquez) that we currently have. So my opinion is that this is a trade, like those discussed for AJ Burnett and Ken Griffey last year, that will be better for the Sox if it doesn't happen.

Thanks, Beck72 and others. It is nice to see some people on Soxtalk don't really care for all the pointless personal bashing that seems to have taken over this site. It wasn't here when I first joined, and it has grown rather tiresome. But let me return to the subject. First, I think Jose Contreras is a vastly superior pitcher to Javier Vazquez, and I think he will remain a superior pitcher for the rest of Contreras's career, even if Vazquez can somehow find some of his Montreal form. Second, I believe KW understands that Contreras is a superior pitcher, and therefore will make every effort to extend Contreras's contract beyond the end of 2006. I think the main issue is length more than money at the moment, with the Sox not liking to tie up pitchers longer than 3 years, and Contreras wanting 3 MORE years for a total of 4. I expect they'll end up finding some middle ground where both sides can be happy. Remember, as far as budget goes, any extension for Jose goes on 2007's ledger, and won't have a whit of impact on this year's. Third, I'm sure KW isn't planning on trading Vazquez at the deadline, and if the Sox don't have any major holes to fill then, he won't be traded. My point has been threefold: 1. Vazquez will likely have more trade value in the middle of 2006 than he has now. 2. If we decide to trade pitching mid-season to fill major holes, Vazquez, who will still probably be the weakest starter at that point, is the logical first choice. Unless he makes a DRAMATIC turnaround, would any of you start him ahead of Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia, or Garland in a playoff game???? 3. We cannot get real value by trading Contreras at this point because he has only one year left on his contract. It makes much more sense to re-sign Jose. After all, he is still our best starter, as he proved once he found his true pitching groove in the middle of last year. If we're facing down the Yankees in the postseason, wouldn't you want him on the mound ahead of anyone else we have?

For those who cared to read the post, I said prospects could be part of a mid-season trade of Vazquez, but they certainly don't have to be the main ingredient. (I mentioned Bobby Abreu first, didn't I?) The Sox could well be in a position to get just about anything they want or need at that point, depending on how well Vazquez responds to Coop's tutelage. Anyone else dumping a major starting pitcher mid-season will likely be offering only a rent-a-player like AJ Burnett. Vazquez will still be tied up for 2-1/2 years in mid-2006.

I believe the Count and the Sox will come to an agreement on an extension. Right now all you see is posturing. Once the posturing is over, Jose will accept that he's very happy with Ozzie as his manager and Coop as his pitching coach, and will sign a reasonable deal. It will be for more than Garland got, because there won't be an arbitration-year discount. But it will be very reasonable compared to Burnett's, Millwood's, and Washburn's deals. I also believe that KW will listen to offers, but that he won't trade any of our big-6 starters before the season starts. He's right when he says that McCarthy needs to fill out more, and that it wouldn't hurt to phase him in. Going straight to a full season as 5th starter might land him and his skinny frame on the DL. He's also right to believe that having starting pitching depth may be the best antidote to the Yankees lineup now that it's pretty clear the Yankees are our main rivals for the AL pennant. As I posted elsewhere, if we are going to trade a starter, the starter to trade may be Vazquez, and the time to trade him would not be now when he's coming off a mediocre year in Arizona, but at the trade deadline, after he regains some of his former Montreal form under Coop's tutelage. The Count proved very capable as a #1 starter in the playoffs. He's still the guy I would most trust in that role, especially if we were facing the Yankees. I think KW has every intention of re-signing him and keeping him. It is the wise choice.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 03:32 AM) Maybe the trend of staying put at the deadline and making a run with what you have is the new thing to do. That might be the best thing to do in 2006 for the Sox too. My point is this. Sign Contreras because he's the best starting pitcher we have and one of the best in baseball. Then go into the season with all of the starters we have because it will give us unmatched strength vis-a-vis the rest of the AL. If, at some point, we need to shore up another part of the team, and we can afford to deal from strength, that will be a better time to make the deal than right now, especially since Vazquez is probably undervalued coming off his poor showing in NY and mediocre season in Arizona. But, we may also need all of those starters if any of them go down to injury. Look what happened to the Yankees staff last year.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 03:24 AM) VA, I hope you are writing another sweet novel that makes no sense. What part, exactly, makes no sense? 1. Re-signing Jose Contreras for another 2-3 years beyond 2006? I don't think his 3-year $36 million ask is that far out of line given what Millwood, Burnett, and Washburn got, but I also think the Sox will end up getting him for less. Do you think that would be a bad deal? (Remember, it wouldn't be on this year's payroll.) 2. Starting the season with Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, and Vazquez in the rotation? 3. Trying to get Vazquez to regain some of the form and results he showed in Montreal, thereby increasing his value exponentially? 4. Easing Brandon McCarthy into the majors by having him start the season in the bullpen? KW has said McCarthy needs to fill out his frame, and I'll bet he believes McCarthy is a risk to get hurt until he does. 5. Assessing our needs through the middle of the year before we consider trading one of our top-5 starters? Where's the flaw?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 03:20 AM) and why is that??? Historically, it is rather unusual for there to be no deals at the deadline, don't you think? Plus, if KW is willing to deal a 200+-inning pitcher with 2-1/2 years to go on his contract, don't you think he'll have several offers to choose from? What was being offered last year was AJ Burnett as a rental, Mike Lowell as a salary dump, and the guys from Tampa Bay, whose GM never trades with anyone anyway. SF wasn't dealing - they were just waiting for BB to return. The Yankees couldn't deal because they have no prospects and no one wants their overpaid baggage (even so, Shawn Chacon was one of the best July deals that was made). Etc. There were unusual circumstances that added up to no major moves.

QUOTE(forrestg @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 02:44 AM) I like your thinking. the value of everybody goes up at trade deadline. Last year so much that hardly any trades were made I wouldn't bet on there being another year of no trade-deadline deals.

Does anyone doubt that when all the negotiating is over, that Jose Contreras will sign an extension with the Sox? After all the love he has felt here, and his rapport with Ozzie and Coop, I think there is no doubt that Jose will want to be back. I think as long as Jose's demands don't get ridiculous, that KW will find a way to make a deal. So where will that leave the Sox? With 6 strong starting pitchers, the envy of baseball. And, unless someone comes to the Sox with an offer KW can't refuse, I think that is where the Sox will be opening day. McCarthy will be in the bullpen and Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, and Vazquez will be in the rotation. It makes a lot of sense. For example, what if Mark Buehrle's foot twinge last spring had been real, knocking him out for weeks? Freak injuries can happen, and having an extra starter ready to plug in can go from a luxury to a necessity whenever they do. Given how badly the Sox performed from 2001-2004 without a reliable 5th man, I think KW fully appreciates the value of starting depth. But this is not necessarily the same place the Sox should be mid-season. By then, they will have a much better assessment of the AL race, how Brandon McCarthy continues to perform against major league hitting, and the health of the team. They should also know whether Brian Anderson is overmatched in CF, whether Jim Thome is fully recovered and back to his old self, whether Joe Crede's back is holding up, etc. In other words, KW will have an even better sense of the club's mid-season needs. (Let's hope we don't have any.) But the biggest thing the Sox may know is how good Javier Vazquez really is. Is he the Vazquez who showed great promise in Montreal? Or the mediocre innings eater he was for the Diamondbacks last year. Under Coop's tutelage, it is highly unlikely he'll be any worse than he was in 2005, with his 4.32 ERA and 35-HR's surrendered, and more likely he'll be better. Yet better for Vazquez may still make him the weakest starter on our team, capable of being replaced by Brandon McCarthy mid-season. And at that point, still basically bound to any team that trades for him for 2-1/2 more years, Vazquez could be a huge trading chit. In fact, if he's shown a return to Montreal form, he'd have much more trade value mid-season than he does now. His value would also be enhanced because he could be a difference-maker for a contender in need of pitching (which every contender except the Sox will probably need). For example, depending on where the Phillies are, why not Bobby Abreu (and some cash to soften his contract) for a refurbished Vazquez at that point? Or perhaps some other player to give us an offensive boost? Or even a contender's best prospects? Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if KW isn't thinking very much along these lines. Of course, it depends on Jose inking an extension. But it would surprise me a great deal if he doesn't do that.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:12 PM) What everyone else is doing right now, besides you, is stepping back and realizing that Jon Garland probably doesnt see himself staying with the White Sox past his arbitration years because of a multitude(hawkism!) of reasons, among them being A) the White Sox are not going to be in a position to pay him what he will command in the open market, B ) He is a SoCal native, C) He has been jerked around by the White Sox organization in the past, D) he probably doesnt care for the media perception of him in this town, etc. al. In other words, it probably isnt in the cards. Now the White Sox have to make a business decision and attempt to fortify positions for the future because they have extra pitching right now. This team is damn good, and trading Jon away isnt going to change the face of the team. Okay. Here's what you said again. Are you suggesting this doesn't say that Garland isn't going to re-sign with us?

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) You better get ready to eat a lot of crow if he sucks next year. I'll happily eat crow next year if he sucks, if everyone who ripped me about Garland and said he should be traded and/or was never going to sign here again steps up and eats the crow RIGHT NOW.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 08:50 PM) you act like our reasoning wasnt sound. KW issued an ultimatum and Garland responded before Contreras did. It doesnt change the fact that you are overly sentimental about players and engage into extended whinefests when you think one of your guys is going to get traded. and you still dont understand that noone here wanted Garland traded. Most of the people realized the situation the Sox were in and saw Garland as the moveable commodity because he had already turned down a contract and supposedly the contract talks were over. I never said I didnt want him, but I certainly could recognize what his value was and why the Sox would move him, something you still cannot grasp obviously. But thanks for the 20/20 flashback. Nice try, but no cigar. As I said multiple times, turning down a first contract offer was meaningless. Paul Konerko turned down our first contract offer. Until arbitration, I believed the Sox would continue negotiating with Garland, and either he'd accept a deal the Sox could live with or he wouldn't. That's exactly what happened, isn't it? A lot of guys on this board ripped me repeatedly and said I didn't have a clue. That Garland wanted to play on the West Coast. That he would never resign here. That he'd been jerked around by managment, etc. You want me to repeat your post below AGAIN??? As for the sentimentality claim, it's totally bogus. I'm for putting the best team on the field. I defend players who perform. Do you have any argument that Joe Crede, AJ Pierzynski, and Jon Garland didn't perform well for us last year??? Without those 3 guys, we don't have a WS title. But, if someone becomes available who is better than any of them, I'm not going to argue for keeping them.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 07:03 AM) We are going to laugh at threads like this after seeing how good Brian Anderson is. What is your objective evidence that Brian Anderson is going to be good? Certainly not his September stats: 34 ABs, 12 Ks, no BBs. AAA? AA? This guy could become a decent player, but I haven't seen anything exceptional in his minor league career that would lead me to believe that he's going to make us forget Aaron Rowand anytime soon. (And Rowand is hardly an offensive star.) What am I missing? Show me the evidence please.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:12 PM) There is such a thing as reading too far in to what others are saying, and I have to say that this is a classic example of that, VAfan. Who said that Jon Garland is at the zenith of his career? Who said that this is as good as he is ever going to be? You keep confusing "We can trade Jon Garland for MAX value right now" with "Jon Garland isnt going to get any better, therefore we must trade him.". Noone said Garland sucks, Noone said Garland isnt going to get any better. What everyone else is doing right now, besides you, is stepping back and realizing that Jon Garland probably doesnt see himself staying with the White Sox past his arbitration years because of a multitude(hawkism!) of reasons, among them being A) the White Sox are not going to be in a position to pay him what he will command in the open market, B ) He is a SoCal native, C) He has been jerked around by the White Sox organization in the past, D) he probably doesnt care for the media perception of him in this town, etc. al. In other words, it probably isnt in the cards. Now the White Sox have to make a business decision and attempt to fortify positions for the future because they have extra pitching right now. This team is damn good, and trading Jon away isnt going to change the face of the team. This isnt to say that something will not be done. KW could be posturing and something could be worked out. But this isnt a likely scenario. While i will be sorry to see Garland go, I will certainly understand his reasoning. You are far too sentimental about holding on to players. Well, who turned out to be right about Garland????? I'm not sentimental at all. If Javier Vazquez were a better pitcher than Garland, I'd be thrilled to have him take Jon's slot in the rotation. Fact is, he isn't close right now, unless Cooper can work a miracle with him. ******************* So, that's two out of three. I don't expect Crede to sign, nor to I expect the Sox to extend him a deal. When I first wrote this I thought Crede was three years from FA. In fact, he's four years away, with 3 years of arbitration ahead. If I were KW, I would try to sign him for those three years and buy myself some cost certainty. But with Crede's back, I can understand not taking the risk. Even so, watch Crede turn in a great year in 2006.

Anyone still for dumping Jon Garland???? With our defense and AJ calling his pitches, Garland is going to be one hell of a pitcher for us.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 25, 2005 -> 11:09 AM) And the part that really bugs me about this deal (right now I'm prob 45-55 on it), was that we could of possibly traded Brian Anderson instead of Chris Young, but we chose Anderson because he's supposedly ready now. I would agree with this. Comparing Young to Anderson at the same stops is rather depressing when you realize we kept Anderson. And since this post is supposed to be about Borchard, my question is how great a difference is there defensively between Anderson and Borchard? Because Borchard is probably a better hitter than Anderson at this point. (And what does THAT say about Anderson?) (I hope I'm wrong.)