VAfan

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:25 PM) Yes the point of SoxTalk is to discuss but when you choose to leave out a large part of reality, and bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads, multiple people tend to get annoyed with what you discuss. I suspect that's what's happening in your case. You don't bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads???? As for the Sox budget, it has been a moving target in the offseason, hasn't it? And don't we always hear in the middle of the season that KW has flexibility to make deadline deals? Until KW recants his statement that he's willing to go to spring training with 6 starters, or the Sox actually trade Jon Garland, I think it is totally fair game to suggest that he might be kept this year to make another run at a World Title.

Just so the record is clear, if Garland is going to be traded, fine. My points have always been: 1. Don't undervalue him. The guy was our second best starter last year, and is only going to get better, ie., put up similar years to 2005 in the future. 2. Don't just dump him. Given his real value, to trade him without getting impact players (or several potential impact players) in return would not be a good deal for the Sox. 3. Keeping him for a single year may give us our best possible chance at repeating as WS Champs. After all, we've learned the hard way what happens when we are a starter short during the season. Better to have 6 than 4 (when an injury causes someone to go down). I trust Kenny Williams agrees with all three of these points. Thus, I expect we'll either keep him or get great value in return.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:04 PM) Look at Broxton's periphs. The guy was fresh into AA and he's possibly the best closer prospect in the minors right now. As far as Brazoban goes, teams would love to have him. He hit a funk when he lost his closers role, but he has had success at the major league level. The problem was he got rushed into the closers spot. And in Elbert we are getting a guy that would be our top pitching prospect along with Broadway. I'll take your word for it, as you've obviously studdied minor league guys a whole lot more than I have. Broxton appears to have been a wild man, however, in his short stint in the majors. Obviously, if Kenny Williams is going to trade Garland he's going to try to get the best value available. I'm remain doubtful, however, that two bullpen arms could possibly amount to equal value. (Your trade idea was two bullpen arms plus the equivalent of Gio Gonzalez, where Elbert might in fact be the biggest value in the deal. That's very different from what Jim H posted.)

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Once again, you don't get it. Please connect the dots: Garland is in line for a huge arbitration award. The White Sox are apparantly over budget already. Conclusion: It doesn't matter what your preferences are. Try looking at reality. Why are you assuming mediocre bullpen arms? You are not a scout. If you will (for once) look at the whole, realistic picture, you would not be throwing around names like Guardado and Trevor Hoffman. They make big money. Same with Brian Giles by the way. Again, they are apparantly over budget, they would not have made the Vazquez trade if Garland had signed an extension. It takes more analysis than just looking at the other team's major league roster and drawing a short sighted conclusion. Williams just said the other day that he favors starting out young pitchers in the bullpen and ultimately grooming them to be a starter if it suits the team and the player. Do you not think they could find a younger pitcher or two who would fit and contribute nicely in a 2006/2007 bullpen role, with an eye toward developing them as a starter for years beyond? I fail to see why you don't come to grips with reality on this. It has nothing to do with what you want. It has everything to do with what the White Sox need and want to do. Otherwise, you are needlessly arguing and belaboring ideas with no basis in reality. I thought the point of Sox Talk was to discuss what we believe the Sox should do. Of course the field shifts every time the Sox do something, or we receive more information. Based on your post, I analyzed whether getting two bullpen arms was fair value for the Sox for trading Jon Garland. I offered more analysis in that regard than anyone posting on this thread with the possible exception of Chisoxfn. (No I don't think the Mariners are giving us Eddie Guardado or the Padres Trevor Hoffman. That was my point.) As for reality, I seem to recall several quotes from Kenny Williams recently that he was happy to go to spring training with 6 starters. So, budget or not, until the Sox trade Jon Garland or he becomes a free agent, keeping him is certainly a distinct possibility and as much grounded in reality as anything you have written to the contrary.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:43 PM) Ok lets presume Kenny wants two relievers in a deal: Elbert or another prospect from the Dodgers, Broxton, and Brazoban. Brazoban is a major leaguer reliever that started to really struggle late last year, however he did notch 22 saves and has a power arm. Broxton is a converted reliever who was called up late last season and has a power arm and a good slider. Elbert is an A ball rookie thats on par with Gio Gonzalez. Not a bad looking deal cause the Sox can slide Brazoban and Broxton into the back of there pen and let the two develop. Plus you have a shot at letting Tracey compete. Would this not be a fair enough deal? I can't seem to copy their stat lines over from ESPN, but Brazoban's ERA was 5.33 over 72 innings with 6 blown saves, 32 walks, and a WHIP of 1.40. Broxton's line was worse: 13 innings, 5.93 ERA, 12 walks, 1.83 WHIP, 1 blown save. Luis Vizcaino, by comparison, pitched 70 innings, posted a 3.73 ERA, walked 29 guys with a WHIP of 1.47, and blew only 3 saves. So other than the fact that you think these guys arms are great, it looks like Vizcaino performed quite a bit better than both last year. Sure, Brazoban and Broxton are both quite a bit younger than Vizcaino, but that may or may translate into performance next year or beyond. I'd rather have a 6-deep dominant rotation than to be worried all year that we're screwed if any of our starters go down. Especially with 3 of them putting in extra innings in the World Baseball Classic. (Remember Buehrle's foot injury at the end of spring training last year? Luckily, it wasn't anything.)

Two bullpen arms for Jon Garland??? I can believe the rest of the post, but there are no bullpen arms we would get in trade who would equal the value of Jon Garland. Let's just talk about West Coast teams, since that's where everyone assumes he wants to go. Angels: Kelvim Escobar, Scott Shields?? A viable pair from our perspective, but there's no way the Angels would make that trade. They'd want to give us back end of the bullpen guys like Kevin Gregg or maybe Brendan Donnelly. No thanks. Dodgers: You guys have thrown around a lot of names, but do you realize not a single Dodger reliever other than Eric Gagne had an ERA below 3.73? That's Luis Vizcaino's ERA from the AL. So anyone we'd get from them is liable to make our bullpen worse than it was last year. I'd say that's getting great value for an 18-game winner. Giants: Scott Eyre was their best guy, and he's gone. Everyone else would make you miss Vizcaino and Marte. Seattle: Eddie Guardado would provide some value, and Julio Mateo looks decent enough on paper, but do you think Garland wants to play in Seattle, and that they are willing to pay him? San Diego: I don't think they are going to send us Trevor Hoffman. And they can't afford Garland anyway. To trade a front-line starter like Garland for bullpen arms makes no sense whatsoever. I don't believe Kenny Williams is that dumb. Knowing what happened when we were a starter short in 2001-2004, I think he'd rather keep Garland and lose him to FA than accept no value in return. In the long run, the Sox need to replace their outfield. Brian Anderson may or may not make it; same for Jerry Owens and Ryan Sweeney. Podsednik's wheels already look shaky after one year, and without them he's a marginal ballplayer at best. Dye is going to be 32 this year, but isn't likely to match his 2005 production over a full season again. The irony of this, of course, is that the Sox traded their best outfield prospect for Javier Vazquez, and there's no guarantee we'd get someone as good even though we have a better pitcher to offer. The reason is Garland's contract status. Vazquez is Sox property for 3 years. Garland is only a 1-year rental, with no guarantee he'll repeat his 2005 form for a new club with shakier defense and a different catcher calling the game. So from my perspective, the Sox should keep Garland and take the draft picks when he walks. Keeping him gives us the best chance of repeating the division title and facing down the Yankees in the playoffs. And I'd certainly take another shot at winning the World Series over a couple of mediocre bullpen arms.

Bradford's righty/lefty splits were pretty bad last year. I think the Sox would be better off stocking the back end of their pen with guys who can pitch an entire inning instead of a batter or two. Otherwise Cotts and Politte will never get a day's rest.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:04 PM) Well VA we will see who is right. I have no written proof. I will emphatically state that Garland will sign with a team on the west coast specifically california within two years. (He may not have a choice this year) I guess we will have to wait. I am willing to do so. I am a very patient man. I will also state his time with us is extremely limited despite the fact you like him. I do believe his trade value is more when dealing with a west coast team, because I do believe he has made it known he would rather play on the west coast. If he gets traded to the Dodgers padres or angels, he will sign longer term.I am sure KW doesn't give a s*** if you like him or anyone else. I would suspect they do not want to jump way over garcia or Buerhle's salaries too much or else they get themselves in a 2007 jam. I am certain KW is thinking ahead. Now as far as Crede, he may not be traded THIS YEAR but he will not be in the Sox plans in 2008 because of Boras. So if you have a taker now then trade him. Reason is because you will be in the same jam you are with Garland today. Teams will back off because of boras. That said, there may not be a match this year. So we will probably keep the overrated 240 hitter THIS YEAR. I have answered your questions I believe, and now I am done on this thread. I am certain you will bring up the same argument when you start another thread. So, in other words, I post a statement from AJ Pierzynski, and you respond with .... nothing? I'm not predicting anything. I've made the point, backed up completely by numbers, that Garland was our second best pitcher last year. And I've refuted the point that, at 26, he's somehow reached the zenith of his career in 2005 and will never be more valuable than he is now. I would not be surprised if he were traded, but I certainly hope the Sox don't just push him out the door by making a lowball offer and then claiming they couldn't sign him. If he won't take a market 3-year deal, then I'm ready to move on. But I have no illusions that Javier Vazquez will be an improvement over Jon Garland for the next two years of Vazquez's contract. As for Crede, who doesn't know about Scott Boras? But it is ridiculous to just throw up your hands and say - that's it. If he's got Boras as his agent, he's automatically gone. What if Mark Buehrle signed Scott Boras as his agent. Would you put him on the block tomorrow? I'll take this bet - that Joe Crede is an "overrated .240 hitter." I would wager that Crede won't hit as low as .240 in any year for the next 5. I would also wager, unless his back forces him on the DL, that his 22 HRs from 2005 will be his new floor. I don't know what you were watching in the postseason, but Joe Crede was right there with Paul Konerko and Jermaine Dye (in the WS) as our most dangerous hitter. His 2B drove in the winning run in game 2 against the Angels. He hit the HR to tie game 5 against the Angels, and drove in the winning run in that game too. Against Houston, he hit the go-ahead HR that won game 1 (not to mention at least 2 game-saving stops at 3B). Plus, he started the 5-run rally against a cruising Roy Oswalt with a HR in game 3. That's 4 out of our 11 wins where Crede was perhaps the key offensive player in our lineup. Pretty good for an "overrated .240 hitter." All Boras's clients want is money. The Sox can either choose to pay up or let the guy go elsewhere. I think Joe Crede finally figured out his hitting problems last year, and we'll now see a guy who may slump a little when he's not hot, but won't fall off the deep end like he did for two months of last year. So, this is the last point at which Crede will be available for a bargain price. I think the Sox should take advantage of their opporutnity.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:53 PM) Why don't we try to trade Garland and Crede to the Padres for Brian Giles? I know you guys love to try to ridicule me, but from a baseball perspective only, a straight trade of Garland for Giles would actually be a good deal for the Sox. Giles, in a horrible home park, was the 12th or 13th best offensive player in baseball last year (slightly better than Paul Konerko), and would likely do at least as well with the Cell as his home park (more than making up for any age or league-related decline). Indeed, if he hit as well in the Cell as he hit on the NL road last year, he would be a huge addition to the offense. (Giles created 116 runs; Rowand created 76 runs. That 40-run difference is greater than the 19-run differential between Garland and Vazquez.) The deal is not going to happen, obviously, but it would be a fair trade from a value perspective (leaving aside the fact that Giles was a FA but now probably has veto rights over a trade).

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:46 PM) Haven't all these issues been discussed till we puke in other threads? It appears people don't read or jsut like to start new threads. Point #1- garland does not want to resign here. He likes california thats where he will go. it really doens't matter what KW wants or if the sox give him 10 million. He will become a free agent. Point #2 - Crede will not sign long term if his agent is boras. May not happen this year but he will be gone unless he changes agents. Why is this so hard for people to understand? My post was started November 24th. AJ said in today's Trib that he's spoken with Garland and Garland told him he would like to come back. Post the link please from someone who has spoken with Garland that he wants to go back to the West Coast. As for Crede, I think the best way to deal with Boras is to lock in his client early before he becomes a star. I think that window for the Sox is this offseason. By the end of next year, after Crede has a much better year in 2006, I would agree with you that he's likely unsignable. Crede has 3+ years of full time service, but I can't tell from some Google searches whether he'd be a free agent in 2008 or not until 2009. Who knows?

Why don't all you board policemen just address the subject? Pierzynski today said he's spoken with Garland who told him he'd like to be back with the Sox. That's won't get Jon signed, but it refutes the notion that he can't be brought back. Here's the quote: "Garland is due to make a good raise and good for Gar," Pierzynski said during a conference call. "He deserves it for what he's been through. I saw him last week and he wants to stay. Here's the link. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines Have any of you personally talked with Jon to find out his opinion?

Remember, folks, that Paul Konerko's agent said the Sox' first offer was subpar. Stop freaking out. It is just negotiating. Who can blame Jose for trying to get his worth from the Sox? After all, at his age, this next contract will likely be his last remaining big payday, and he's still catching up to other big leaguers after spending most of his pitching career in Cuba. I think at the end of the day, Jose will sign because he loves Ozzie and Coop and feels at home in Chicago. The Sox are just going to have to pay him a fair salary in today's market to make it so.

I thought AJ was the best FA signing of last year's offseason. There's no way the Sox would have won without him leading that pitching staff. And his role in building team unity was as important as his on-the-field contributions. Welcome back, AJ. Glad you are on our side!

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 09:33 PM) im sorry but i wouldnt offer crede a 3/15 just yet. I must say, I should know precisely where Crede is in the arbitration/FA cycle. I'm sure he's not a FA next year, but I assume he would be in 2 years, correct?? That being the case, if Crede eliminates his terrible months, he's going to crack 30 HRs, with an OPS in the mid-.800s. At that point, Boras is going to start demanding $8-10 million/season, and he'd certainly get it the last year of arbitration and the first year of free agency. So a 3/15 deal seems pretty reasonable for the Sox to me. Remember, we can always insure the contract in case Crede's back puts him on the DL.

One down, two to go. AJ is probably the most critical one of the three, but was obviously the easiest to sign. Any chance Crede would take a carbon copy of AJ's deal? How much does Boras want for Crede right now??

I like how guys who have not been on this board as long as I have come in to tell me to get lost. And to all of you who ridiculed me for urging the Sox to sign Brian Giles, not a single one of you has made any credible argument that it would not have been a tremendous move from the Sox standpoint. A fair response to my posts would have been - Giles is a great offensive force (better than Konerko last year, by the way) who would fit great on the Sox - but there's no chance he's leaving San Diego. So now let me turn to the non-responses on Joe Crede. Almost all the posts above have nothing really to say on point. The issue is - is Crede over the hump where he's going to stop having terrible months, thereby turning himself into one of the best 3Bs in baseball? Or is his makeup or his back going to keep him from realizing his potential? That's the topic. If he's the former, then pay the man now and keep him. If he's the latter, then keep arbitrating him until he's free to go. So which is it for Crede? Answer the point and give a reason why.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 01:15 AM) I agree Kenny has taken chances. I've long said if Thome isn't healthy thats a horrid move. If Thome ends up being healthy and putting up two more 40 HR seasons (I can live with the 3rd year being a wash due to injuries simply because two 40 hr seasons would be well worth it). As far as Vazquez goes, I hated giving up Young, especially cause I'm not a vazquez guy. I put faith in Coop and Ozzie working there magic. I hope that with Vazquez in a place he wants to be (and happy) that he'll figure out how to better utilize his stuff. I do think that he's a good starter and I was glad to see us get rid of Duque. The one thing that I'm worried about with next year (aside from injuries) is our bullpen. Its seriously a lot weaker and I love Tracey's stuff but I don't like asking rooks to come in and be a major part of the club right away. It looks like we may be relying on him and Baj. I think both are capable, but you also have Hermy (whose hurt), Politte (coming off a major career year), Jenks (has had arm trouble in the past and has dynomite stuff, but could see a regression), and Cotts (a total horse). Its not the deep pen it once was. If we brought in another good reliever, I'd be a lot happier. I agree with this analysis for the most part. The Thome signing, because it also helped net Konerko, was the key move. That's two major steps forward. But I think we took a step back in the outfield unless something else is done. I don't trust Brian "strikeout" Anderson to be able to hit this year off his terrible performance in September. 12 Ks in 34 ABs with no walks is not confidence- building. Mackoviak was a great move, because it gives us some insurance in a lot of places - OF, 3B, and 2B - and a lefty bat. It also subtracts our bullpen head case and keeps Ozzie from using Marte an inopportune moments. It is the Vazquez trade that concerns me. I understand it. Vazquez might be put back on track by Coop and gives us two years of insurance in the rotation if Garland or Contreras choose to walk as free agents. And El Duque and Vizcaino are theoretically replaceable in the pen. But Chris Young?? For a guy who HAD to be traded? This one hurts. I'll take Young over any outfielder we've had since a young Magglio Ordonez, especially since he can play CF. OUCH. I'm sure KW's not done, however, and he better not be. The bullpen is missing at least two arms, and the outfield still has a huge question mark in CF. Offensively, we should be better because of Thome, but if Anderson can't hit, a lot of that could be negated. Plus, what kind of depth do we have if someone goes down? Mack can't cover more than one position at a time, and if we now trade a starter, we won't have that 6th starter to cover for an injury to any of the first 5 guys. So I would say, some huge plusses, some not-insignificant losses, some remaining question marks. The Sox have a chance to be even better, and I think will probably break the 100 mark in wins for the first time in franchise history. But it's not a certainty.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 01:10 AM) Very good in terms of prospects. He's got the ability to be a perennial all star, but at the same time he has the chance to belly up. I don't see him busting and I see him turning into a 30-40 HR CFer, with potentially 50 HR power who will compete for gold gloves and hit for high avg's. Ie, I think he's going to be great, but the odds of him actually fullfilling all that, not that great. Thats his ceiling though (ie, he's a high ceiling guy). If you are the guy in the know about Sox prospects, I'd like to hear whether you agree with my assessment. Chris Young and Brandon McCarthy were/are the two best major league prospects in the entire Sox system, and the most likely to be major league stars. Agree? Disagree? If true, I can't believe KW couldn't have gotten the Vazquez deal done with one or two lesser talents, as he HAD to be traded by March or would be a free agent. I guess we have to move on, but I was looking forward to seeing Chris Young in the Sox outfield as early as mid-late 2006. Bummer.

This is a better discussion. I hate personal attacks (my shut up comment was only in defense to a lot of crap I've received after posting thoughtful posts) and much prefer actual analysis. Nite train's numbers show Blalock may be better than he was last year, and maybe Blalock's second half decline is partly due to Texas heat. But I'm still convinced Crede is going to finally get more consistent offensively, and can be had for a reasonable price if we strike now.

I have no objection with merging my point in this thread. But for those of you who criticize my points, back it up with real analysis, or shut up. Blalock absolutely sucked on the road. Joe Crede, on the other hand, is weighed down by streaks of horrible performance. April 79 12 24 6 0 2 9 5 3 9 0 0 .304 .368 .456 .824 May 84 8 13 2 0 3 9 5 2 17 0 1 .155 .211 .286 .496 June 80 11 22 3 0 6 17 5 2 10 1 0 .275 .333 .538 .871 July 69 10 21 5 0 4 12 4 0 11 0 0 .304 .342 .551 .893 August 58 2 6 1 0 1 1 2 1 10 0 0 .103 .148 .172 .320 September 58 11 22 4 0 6 13 4 0 8 0 0 .379 .419 .759 1.178 In 3 months of the year, Crede is vastly superior, offensively, to Hank Blalock, whose monthly splits are here: April 98 13 26 7 0 4 13 14 0 18 1 0 .265 .357 .459 .816 May 105 15 32 6 0 5 16 6 0 30 0 0 .305 .342 .505 .847 June 108 15 31 5 0 6 19 10 1 20 0 0 .287 .353 .500 .853 July 114 17 28 4 0 4 14 9 1 25 0 0 .246 .306 .386 .692 August 115 11 30 3 0 4 16 4 0 15 0 0 .261 .283 .391 .675 September 101 8 21 8 0 2 12 7 1 24 0 0 .208 .259 .347 .605 Blalock wins the two months in which Crede is off the charts bad, and I would rate April a tie. Now make the case that you'd rather have the second guy, even though the first guy was probably our postseason MVP. To me, streaky hitting is something that can be ironed out, and I think Joe Crede is poised to do that. If Crede's funks even turned into the .650 OPS that Blalock shows, he would already be among the 5 or 6 best offensive 3Bs in baseball. And even with Scott Boras as his agent, he would be hard pressed to turn down roughly Blalock's contract if offered to him as a 3-4 year deal.

Joe Crede's name has been brought up by, among others, Phil Rogers, who thinks we ought to trade Jon Garland AND Joe Crede for Hank Blalock. Egads: When you look at Blalock's road numbers of a .335 slugging average and a .276 OBP, however, you realize what a stupid move that would be. The dilemma of Joe Crede is that he's a horribly streaky hitter. Here are his splits last year, by month: April 79 12 24 6 0 2 9 5 3 9 0 0 .304 .368 .456 .824 May 84 8 13 2 0 3 9 5 2 17 0 1 .155 .211 .286 .496 June 80 11 22 3 0 6 17 5 2 10 1 0 .275 .333 .538 .871 July 69 10 21 5 0 4 12 4 0 11 0 0 .304 .342 .551 .893 August 58 2 6 1 0 1 1 2 1 10 0 0 .103 .148 .172 .320 September 58 11 22 4 0 6 13 4 0 8 0 0 .379 .419 .759 1.178 In April, June, July, and September, the man is in the top 6 OFFENSIVE 3Bs in baseball. He's better than Eric Chavez, for example, whose OPS was .794. The question is what is going to take for Crede to eliminate his horrible streaks of May and August?? Personally, I think he's already found it in fatherhood and postseason glory. I expect we will see Joe hit 30 or more HRs, with a .500+ slugging percentage and an OPS in the .850+ range next year, and then carry those kind of numbers forward into his early 30s. He'd be a very good #6 hitter behind Konerko and Thome (I'd hit Dye 3rd, but that's another post). And with his defense already better than everyone above him offensively except possibly A-Rod, Joe Crede will be one of the 5 best 3Bs in the game in the next couple of years. The only thing that might derail that is his back. So, please stop with the "trade Joe Crede" ideas. Boras or no, KW should put signing JC to a multi-year deal at the top of his list of remaining offseason things to do.

Rogers is suggesting Garland AND Crede for Hank Blalock. AAACCK. No thanks. Here's Blalock's pitiful numbers away from home: Away 334 26 77 20 0 5 29 21 1 70 0 0 .231 .276 .335 .611 .335 slugging? .276 OBP? I wouldn't trade Joe Crede for him straight up? And I'm sure you could get Crede signed right now for Blalock's deal, even with Scott Boras as his agent. Joe Crede is going to turn into a monster for the Sox in 2006, just like he was in the postseason.

I had no problem with the Thome trade. It was the kind of trade that probably helped both teams. But we needed insurance if Konerko left, and Thome helped bring Konerko back. So I'd rate the trade as a big plus. I wanted KW to pursue Brian Giles. It would have been a fabulous move, as Giles is an offensive machine and came reasonably priced. Plus, as a free agent, he wouldn't have cost us any prospects. But even had we bid, it is unlikely we could have pried him away from San Diego. I thought the Mackowiak trade was a huge plus. Marte was a head case, and we need a lefty who can back up the infield and outfield positions. Konerko re-signing was obviously another very good deal. But the Vasquez trade leaves me scratching my head. And it is not so much Kenny Williams I have criticism for, it is the Sox fans on this website who want to just dump Jon Garland now. To that I think -- what ungrateful, and uneducated, fans. Vasquez is no match for Garland as a pitcher, and had we had Javier instead of Jon last year, we'd still be singing the second place blues. Plus, to lose Chris Young in the deal is painful. To my mind, Young and McCarthy were the only two prospects in the Sox's system who will have great careers. Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, Borchard, and Reed before them, etc. are not going to pan out as complete players I don't think. They may have some use, like Aaron Rowand did for us, but I don't see any of them ever surpassing Rowand's contributions. Chris Young, on the other hand, is going to be great I believe. Think Magglio Ordonez (before he was injured). I hope Coop can work miracles with Vazquez. And I hope if we do trade Garland, we get a major impact player in return. But right now my hopes for a 2006 repeat have lessened, not increased.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:15 PM) he has stated that he would like to play on the West coast closer to home Link??? I know Garland turned down the Sox initial offer. So did Konerko. That doesn't mean he can't be signed. Why not give Garland $10-11 million/year for the next 3 years. Since he won't crack $8 million this year in arbitration, by paying him a little more up front you can save some on the back end. I'm sure that's more than what the Sox offered, so who says he won't take it? After all, he's taking some risk if he just plays out the year because he's had only 1 great season. If he regresses anywhere close to his .500 record, or gets hurt, he's screwed. And at the end of a new 3-year deal, he's still 29 and able to command even more if he's continued to perform at 2005's level. (Think Kevin Brown.) What really pains me is all the Sox fans who we're getting anything comparable in Javier Vasquez. Remember, if you plugged in Vasquez's 11-15 instead of Garland's 18-10, the Sox would have finished second in the AL Central once again. (Same would be true if Vasquez replaced Contreras.) I mean, on the pitching staff, couldn't you say that Jon Garland and Jose Contreras were the keys to the White Sox winning the World Series for the first time in our lives???? Certainly they were the only starters to exceed expectations, weren't they? Yet more than half of the posts about Garland on this site seem to be from ungrateful bums who are ready to toss off Garland as if he were a mediocre, middle of the road pitcher like ..... Javier Vasquez (who Arizona couldn't wait to dump). If you look at career curves, Vasquez's is on the way down at 30; Garland's is on the way up at 26. Why not bite the bullet of a few extra million when the difference between them could mean another World Series?? (I realize, by the way, that Garland controls his own fate here. Even if we offer him market, he may decide he's ready to move on. To that I would say the Sox need to offer him market first and do what they can to make him want to stay. If they are going to trade him, they need a very high impact player or players in return. We've already weakened our bullpen and traded our 5th starter insurance, and if we trade one of our current starters we'll have no insurance if any of them goes down. Plus, we know how a bad 5th starter can ruin a season. I also wouldn't have been so concerned about this trade if we'd given up one of our other outfield prospects - any of our other outfield prospects - but not Chris Young. That kid is going to be a big star.)

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:54 PM) Basing a pitcher on his record when he played for one of the worst teams in baseball. Ok. Garland isn't like a million times better than Javy as you said. They are very different pitchers and I don't see how can you possibly call JG way better. JV will pitch more similar to his Monteal days than the NYY/AZ days, JMO. Just remember that had we had Javier Vasquez this year instead of either Jose Contreras or Jon Garland, we not only wouldn't have won the World Series, we wouldn't have made the playoffs. Check it out. There's no reason to believe Vasquez would have pitched better in the AL facing DH's instead of pitchers. And given the Sox' difficulty scoring runs, there is no reason to believe he would have done better than 11-15. Compared to Garland's 18-10 or even Contreras's 13-9, that's enough of a swing that Cleveland wins the division and we sit home.