From the Boston Herald, Randy Johnson ain't a foregone conclusion yet folks.

 

Barry Zito and Mark Mulder are being shopped by Oakland. Besides the Red Sox, other teams who are believed to have shown interest are the Yankees, Orioles, Mets, Blue Jays and White Sox. . . .

I would take Mulder way before I ever took Zito.

For some reason, this sounds like a red herring, having two guys available who are locked up for two yrs and are relatively cheap. Hudson is the guy they have to trade, as he'll be too expensive after 2005. Beane could be trying to take the focus off Hudson, like he doesn't have to trade him. I don't buy the two stud LH's being available.

Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price?

I wonder with these guys on the market, plus the FA pitchers available (Pedro, Pavano, etc) if that will drive the price down for some of these guys. This could work to the Sox advantage.

 

"You b****es want Garland, Konerko, AND prospects for Johnson? Damn I can get Mulder for that!"

 

*not actual KW conversation, this is strictly a reinactment. KW was not harmed in the filming of this clip.*

I would rather take one of the big 3. Mulder would be the ultimate choice of those.

I would rather take one of the big 3. Mulder would be the ultimate choice of those.

Let's outline the Pro's and Con's of the big 3.

MULDER

Pro's - Local Boy, Former #2 pick, Lefty, Won 17 games in 2004.

Con's - Chronic Hip Problem, Wore down late in 2004 season, gave up 25 HR's.

ZITO

Pro's - Former Cy Young Winner, Fantastic Curveball, Best K/9 ratio in 2004 out of 3.

Con's - High ERA of 4.48, gave up 28 HR's.

HUDSON

Pro's - Most consistent out of the big 3, Lowest WHIP in 2004 out of 3. Only gave up 8 HR's in 27 games. Only 44 BB's in 27 games.

Con's - Missed time due to injury this season. Could cost the most out of big 3.

 

When you look at these things, I think it's hard not to go after Hudson. He doesn't give up many home runs at all which would be a huge plus at the Cell, doesn't walk hitters much and he's been extremely consistent.

If the Sox could grab any of those 3 it would be huge. How bad is Mulder's "Chronic" hip problem? Is it just a nagging sore hip or is it something more than that? If it is more then I would have to say stay away from him then.

If the Sox could grab any of those 3 it would be huge. How bad is Mulder's "Chronic" hip problem? Is it just a nagging sore hip or is it something more than that? If it is more then I would have to say stay away from him then.

Not particulary sure but this is what I've found.

Clubs are scared off by Mulder's chronic hip condition and poor finish,

I just wonder if its a degenerative hip condition or just a nagging type injury. I suppose it would be fairly simple to find out though. Have him take a physical and then you would know. If it is degenerative then I wouldn't want anything to do with him. He wouldn't last long enough. If its a nagging injury it could be a slight miss in his mechanics that could be fixed and take that out of it. Its worth looking into though. IMO

Unless he signs an extension soon, Hudson is the most likely guy to get traded.

I wonder with these guys on the market, plus the FA pitchers available (Pedro, Pavano, etc) if that will drive the price down for some of these guys.  This could work to the Sox advantage. 

It should definitely lessen the price. Teams have a lot of SP options [though true aces are few]. That's why I don't buy into the theory that "the big 3" are all available. And think Beane is trying not to sound desperate in having to trade Hudson.

I feel much more comfortable going through with a trade similar to the RJ one, if we're guaranteed some years with these guys. RJ really scares me with his age and the fact that we might not have him but a year.

Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price?

Did they do away with arbitration?

I wonder with these guys on the market, plus the FA pitchers available (Pedro, Pavano, etc) if that will drive the price down for some of these guys.  This could work to the Sox advantage. 

 

"You b****es want Garland, Konerko, AND prospects for Johnson?  Damn I can get Mulder for that!"

 

*not actual KW conversation, this is strictly a reinactment.  KW was not harmed in the filming of this clip.*

Nah, with KW the way he is he'd probably throw in Lee just for the hell of it.

Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price?

I'd take Mulder for 5-10 over RJ for 1-2 in a heartbeat.

I'd take Mulder or Hudson. I always loved that Zito curveball...but his win total has gone down and his ERA has gone up. I think we can all agree that to consistently win in this league, you have to have a pretty decent fastball as your #1 pitch (see Clemens, R., Johnson, R., Schilling, C., Martinez, P.). If your out pitch is offspeed, it better be damn good and damn consistent (see Foulke, K.). Batters have figured out, to a degree, Zito's curve.

 

Although, I wouldn't be upset if we got him, he would be choice three of the big three. Still ahead of a lot of other FA's out there.

I would take Mulder way before I ever took Zito.

I agree.Mulder and Beuhrle are out of the same bag.They keep you in the game

and eat up innings,thereby making it a lot easier on your bullpen.Mark Mulder??

YYYEEEESSSSS!!

Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price?

I didn't realize that Zito, Hudson, and Mulder were locked up for the next 5-10 years. :rolly

 

Who's says they're going to sign extensions with us? Didn't Bartolo say he wanted to stayy in Chicago, but refused the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the White Sox?

I'd take Mulder for 5-10 over RJ for 1-2 in a heartbeat.

5-10 years, what r you talkin about? since when does JR give out more than 3 year deals

5-10 years, what r you talkin about? since when does JR give out more than 3 year deals

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with not going over three years, too.

 

One injury could ruin a pitcher's career; so staying on three year contracts, with team options or player options for the fourth year is the way to go, IMO.

I didn't realize that Zito, Hudson, and Mulder were locked up for the next 5-10 years. :rolly

 

Who's says they're going to sign extensions with us?  Didn't Bartolo say he wanted to stayy in Chicago, but refused the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the White Sox?

I agree, especially considering that we already have Buehrle, Freddy, and Contreras locked up for a while. I doubt that we would invest that much money in 4 starters for the next few years. If we got one of those guys we'd only be guaranteed whatever is left on their deal. Unless we offer them something huge before they are FA, I don't see why they would resign. Those guys could just about name their price. It is much more likely that we would take a one or two year shot at Randy. However, if that falls through I certainly wouldn't complain about a year of Hudson or two of Mulder, assuming the hip isn't a huge issue (not so confident in Zito).

Did they do away with arbitration?

They are not gonna be arbitration eligible when their current contracts are over.

They are not gonna be arbitration eligible when their current contracts are over.

Everybody is arb eligible after 3 years. If you are a FA, the team that last had you can offer you arbitration.

if we take Mulder we can't have one of those great buehrle-mulder 90 minute games......