2OutRally Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Hmm... this is how I feel on this: Garland stays. Too much talent to give up just yet...give him another year. And if he still performs the same then they can think about trading him. Konerko/Garland/Prospects for a old veteran injury prone Randy Johnson? Who might only have a few years left in him..? That's giving up too much, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 If the Sox take on Vizquel for 4 and Johnson for 16.5 (minus 12.5 or so for Konerko and Garland) they'll have raised payroll by about 8 million dollars over what it was at the end of last year to around 71 million (assuming they are at around 63 million now per the Cheat's blog). The Sox website & Trib have said payroll would come in around 65 million. So let's assume that wasn't true and they are willing to add payroll for Johnson and Vizquel. I still don't see them paying for a decent 5th and closer/setup man. A good setup reliever will take at least 3 million IMO (a mediocre starter would be about the same). A real closer (e.g. Benitez) would cost much more. I think, it's more likely Grilli will be in the rotation and a Mike Jackson-ish RP will be signed. The key is getting value from a 5th SP and a reliever. The sox have had good success finding a guy cheap who can do the job [Loiaza, Gordon, Politte]. With relievers such as Ramiro Mendoza, Matt Mantei who have been injured, and vet SP's like Paul Wilson, Wilson Alvarez etc, the sox could fill these spots for $1-2 mill. each. If the sox seem like they have their act together, getting the top "cheap" guys does make a difference. Or the sox could go with a $1 mill, bullpen guy, and pay more for a SP. Or vice versa. The Sox have a record around the league of giving guys a 2nd chance to prove themselves, esp. due to past injuries, or w/ Scott Schoeneweis of letting him go back to being a starter. Being known as an org. that gives guys a 2nd or 3rd chance should pay dividends. While part of it is being "cheap" and loking for the best value, the sox have been willing to take chances on guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Good post, if this trade goes through, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see esty back here. Esteban won't sign cheap, despite his poor season. I'd still expect him to command 3-4 million on the FA market. That money is better spent elsewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I wouldn't do that trade for just RJ. It's just me but I'd want a throw-in prospect too, ya know, like Cottsy was. For some reason I just forsee us having the luck that we did with Colon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Konerko/Garland/Prospects for a old veteran injury prone Randy Johnson? Who might only have a few years left in him..? That's giving up too much, IMO. Johnson has only thrown 240+ innings in 6 of the last 7 seasons. And last yr was due to his knee, not his arm. Injury prone? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I don't do this trade. I think there's just too much of a chance for us to end up on the short end of the stick. We know what we would be getting with Konerko/JG. I do however feel Konerko should be the one to be moved. I'd much rather have one of the Oakland trio. For all we know the prospects are choose two out of McCarthy/Anderson/Sweeney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 RJ probably has one more year left, but definitely no more than two. Konerko might have one year left but theres also a good possibility that he will resign and have many more years with us. Well how about this? Trade Konerko for Johnson, and then sign Paulie when he is a FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I think that injury prone comment is one of the dumbest I've ever heard. Injured once makes you injury prone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I think that injury prone comment is one of the dumbest I've ever heard. Injured once makes you injury prone? Heh....we never thought Magglio would get injured either..... His age worries me more than anything when I would much rather have one of the Oakland guys that is more than 10 yrs younger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawaiisoxfn Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Heh....we never thought Magglio would get injured either..... His age worries me more than anything when I would much rather have one of the Oakland guys that is more than 10 yrs younger. Billy Beane said hes very happy with his big three so dont plan on getting one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm just saying....that's the route I'd want to go. RJ just worries me so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Can someone do the math here? I'm just trying to figure out -- that, if we do make this trade -- will there still be money left over to fill some other holes? I assume that the Vizquel thing is pretty much set in stone. If a trade of PK + JG for RJ goes through, we still have a couple of holes to fill: reliever, 5th starter, and (preferably, because I don't want to see Carl Everett in RF every day) a RFer (Jermaine Dye would put up monster numbers here, IMO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'd do this, no questions asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 How many other teams' fansites do you think have these scenarios going around too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I don't understand why Arizona would make this trade, unless the Sox prospect is Sweeney, Anderson or BMac. Garland is arbitration eligible and will get $4-5 million. Konerko will make $9 million with his trade bonus. Both are free agents after next season. Johnson costs the DBacks $10 million now, $6 million later. It probably comes out to slightly more money, but certainly not enough to make up for the PR hit if they made the trade. The age factor doesn't bother me. In fact, the edge goes to the White Sox with this. Garland and Konerko are going to command multi year contracts. Johnson you could get with a one year extension, and go year to year with him. This trade makes no sense to Arizona unless the White Sox pick up a lot of $. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'd do it. I'm more interested on the prospects we would lose though. Pitching wins championships. We would have three horses who can pitch a ton of innings and a nasty 4th starter. If Esty is the 5th starter, that's fine with me imho. Or, maybe Kenny plans on signing O. Perez as well.. Ah what the hell I can dream.. Johnson Garcia Buehrle O. Perez Contreras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm only on page three, but it's bugged me that nobody has corrected this.... yet, they may have by the time I make it to page ten, but Jon Garland is property of the Chicago White Sox through the 2006 season. He has two more years here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 Can someone do the math here? I'm just trying to figure out -- that, if we do make this trade -- will there still be money left over to fill some other holes? I assume that the Vizquel thing is pretty much set in stone. If a trade of PK + JG for RJ goes through, we still have a couple of holes to fill: reliever, 5th starter, and (preferably, because I don't want to see Carl Everett in RF every day) a RFer (Jermaine Dye would put up monster numbers here, IMO). There will be very little to no money left to spend. Johnson is due 16 million next year. Konerko is owed 8.75. I'll be generous and give Garland 4.25. That is still an increase of 3 million dollars, which to put it in perspective is Vizquel money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm only on page three, but it's bugged me that nobody has corrected this.... yet, they may have by the time I make it to page ten, but Jon Garland is property of the Chicago White Sox through the 2006 season. He has two more years here. Beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The A's talk is relatively absurd because there are MANY teams that match up better including Toronto, Boston, Cleveland, and several national league teams. The A's will not be interested in Jon Garland(who costs around what the Big 3 costs while expiring at the same time) and Konerko and Lee are bad fits because of the money they make. The A's will retool with young pitching prospects and young hitters that fit their organizational philosophy. I don't even believe that Rowand walks enough for their tastes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm only on page three, but it's bugged me that nobody has corrected this.... yet, they may have by the time I make it to page ten, but Jon Garland is property of the Chicago White Sox through the 2006 season. He has two more years here. So eventually you'd be trading 2 years of Jon Garland for about $3 to $4 mill with the potential of him turning into a 15 game to 20 game winner plus prospects and Paul Konerko, for 2 years of Randy Johnson with dodgy knees for 2 more years at $16 million. There's no doubt there'd be a boost in marketing and the crowds, but will it really improve our team? In my opinion Lieber and Garland > Randy Johnson. Then you can trade Konerko, possibly to Oakland for Tim Hudson or in some other deal for a bullpen piece perhaps (Julio and Hairston?) that will better suit our needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Esteban won't sign cheap, despite his poor season. I'd still expect him to command 3-4 million on the FA market. That money is better spent elsewhere If esty commands 3 or 4 mill I agree with you spend the money elsewhere. With the vizquel thing seeming a lock, if this trade would somehow go through, I'd like to see a cheap 5th starter signed and then one reliever and I'd be pretty happy. I honestly think Jurrassic is going to have a very solid year for us next year, jmo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'd rather put my money on RJ's knees holding up than Garland reaching his potential that we have been talking about for every god damn year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 There will be very little to no money left to spend. Johnson is due 16 million next year. Konerko is owed 8.75. I'll be generous and give Garland 4.25. That is still an increase of 3 million dollars, which to put it in perspective is Vizquel money. Johnson would be taking up almost 1/4 of our payroll. We weren't willing to pay Maggs that amount and we probably won't for Carlos Beltran either. Unless payroll gets significantly bumped up ti the $75 to $80 million mark, it's going to be hard for us to fill our holes with RJ on our payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 So eventually you'd be trading 2 years of Jon Garland for about $3 to $4 mill with the potential of him turning into a 15 game to 20 game winner plus prospects and Paul Konerko, for 2 years of Randy Johnson with dodgy knees for 2 more years at $16 million. There's no doubt there'd be a boost in marketing and the crowds, but will it really improve our team? In my opinion Lieber and Garland > Randy Johnson. Then you can trade Konerko, possibly to Oakland for Tim Hudson or in some other deal for a bullpen piece perhaps (Julio and Hairston?) that will better suit our needs. Exactly. Overlooked in all of this is that Randy Johnson is not a sixteen million dollar pitcher anymore. No one is, so im not trying to take away anything from Randy, hes just not worth it. 25% of the payroll tied up with one player. :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.