Yankees ask about Rowand

[AngelasDaddy0427]

Let Brian Borchard 2K6 Anderson stay in the minors...

 

Joe Borchard was going to be a stud too... remember him...

 

So forgive me if i'd rather not keep the underpaid guy who busts his ass every game and has never hit below .270 with gold glove defense.... AND IS PROVED!!!!

 

Brian Borchard can stay in the minors... Trade him.... BUT DON'T TRADE OUR PROVEN TALENT TO MAKE ROOM FOR A ROOKIE!!!! NOT TO SAVE A FEW MILLION DOLLARS!!!! FOR A 7th starter we don't need...

[Felix]

That's honestly the biggest reason I wouldn't want Aaron traded: him, Joe, and AJ are so close and I just don't want to mess with the chemistry of this club.  That being said if Aaron could be the center piece for a big bat you obviously have to look into it.

Exactly.

Its pretty obvious that clubhouse chemistry is a key point in KW's plan, and if we won the WS by going his way, why would he change now?

[RockRaines]

Why do you guys think that Brian Anderson will hit .270?  In his brief stint in the majors this year, nothing stuck out indicating he would hit that.  He would likely end up hitting ~.250 with 100+ stikeouts in a full season (similar numbers to A-Row in '05).  If that were the case, I would personally rather having A-Row in the outfield, since he's had the experience, and has had major success at the major league level.

 

If the deal is for a big bat, I can make sense of it (I still won't like it, but at least it makes some senes to me).  Pitching, not so much.  Our pitching staff is one of the best in the league, and with BMac coming into it next year, it should be even better.  Why trade the best defensive centerfielder in the game for more pitching?  Do we really need 7-8 starters?

You DO know if you would have stuck Paulie and Dye in there for the same amount of at bats they would have performed the same way, maybe worse. Look at their numbers in their first 50 at bats this year. BA hasnt had the at bats to determine what he will do. All we know is that he adjusts very quickly at each level he has been a player.

[qwerty]

He's going to be in the bullpen, good chance he doesn't get to 120 innings.

 

Only reason i said 120 is counting in injuries. I cannot see us being that lucky so many years in a row. I just see something bad happening to the rotation sooner or later ( hopefully not).

[Soxpranos]

Anyone could be moved if the right deal comes along.  Rowand is one of those that would be more probable than others on the Sox.  As for the Yankees, I never could see what they have to offer that could match up.  It wouldn't shock me to Cashman try and pull in another team if he has his sights set on Rowand.

 

well said

[Rowand44]

Let Brian Borchard 2K6 Anderson stay in the minors...

 

Joe Borchard was going to be a stud too... remember him...

 

So forgive me if i'd rather not keep the underpaid guy who busts his ass every game and has never hit below .270 with gold glove defense.... AND IS PROVED!!!!

 

Brian Borchard can stay in the minors... Trade him.... BUT DON'T TRADE OUR PROVEN TALENT TO MAKE ROOM FOR A ROOKIE!!!! NOT TO SAVE A FEW MILLION DOLLARS!!!! FOR A 7th starter we don't need...

It's honestly so ridiculous that people are down on Anderson cause Borchard has been a bust. Anderson isn't Borchard, every team has busts and every team has guys that make it big, to not want Anderson to get an opportunity because of Borch is completely retarded.

[RockRaines]

Let Brian Borchard 2K6 Anderson stay in the minors...

 

Joe Borchard was going to be a stud too... remember him...

 

So forgive me if i'd rather not keep the underpaid guy who busts his ass every game and has never hit below .270 with gold glove defense.... AND IS PROVED!!!!

 

Brian Borchard can stay in the minors... Trade him.... BUT DON'T TRADE OUR PROVEN TALENT TO MAKE ROOM FOR A ROOKIE!!!! NOT TO SAVE A FEW MILLION DOLLARS!!!! FOR A 7th starter we don't need...

wow, comparing Borchard to Anderson huh? Wow I cant even begin with that, so I will pretend that was a brain fart.

[qwerty]

It's honestly so ridiculous that people are down on Anderson cause Borchard has been a bust.  Anderson isn't Borchard, every team has busts and every team has guys that make it big, to not want Anderson to get an opportunity because of Borch is completely retarded.

 

That's mostly the rowand slurrrper.

[Felix]

You DO know if you would have stuck Paulie and Dye in there for the same amount of at bats they would have performed the same way, maybe worse.  Look at their numbers in their first 50 at bats this year.  BA hasnt had the at bats to determine what he will do.  All we know is that he adjusts very quickly at each level he has been a player.

The MLB is a much different level than AAA or AA. Adjusting in the MLB is a much more difficult thing to do than to adjust in AAA.

 

Personally, I dont see BA doing much next year if he starts.

[Rowand44]

That's mostly the rowand slurrrper.

Ha, ya, but that just kind of reminded me that some want the sox to make huge changes because of the 03 Angels, those type of things make no sense to me.

[RockRaines]

The MLB is a much different level than AAA or AA.  Adjusting in the MLB is a much more difficult thing to do than to adjust in AAA. 

 

Personally, I dont see BA doing much next year if he starts.

Well your opinion, althought pessimistic, is your opinion. Of course his career in baseball proves your opinion to be an outlier. Considering his success at every level in the minors, and his quick adjustment to promotion, his trend suggests that he will prosper in the majors. Of course adjusting is more difficult, but thats why they are called prospects, and every player on the Sox roster has gone through the same adjustment period, meaning someone game them a shot. What if nobody did, just based on a pessimist like yourself who ignores the players career trends. The MLB would be filled with 40 year old guys and nothing else. Of course there is also a reason why the head of player development has his job, and you are posting on a message board trying to refute HIS opinion. But I digress.....

[AngelasDaddy0427]

I said there is no reason to MOVE A PROVEN PLAYER to put in a rookie who might or might not do s*** in the majors....

 

Now if we don't resign Konerko and we have no one else available then by all means give him his shot... But you sure as hell don't trade proven cheap talent so you can do it when you can just as easily trade the prospect...

 

I never said Anderson sucked and to never give him a shot... but you don't trade the proven player to give him one unless he's overpaid... which he's not..

 

Some of you are acting like Anderson is some kind of god... you'll all be the first ones complaining when him and Joe Crede are competing to see who can get to the mendoza line first in April...

[fathom]

Here's my thought on Duque:

 

We all knew he was a risky proposition when we gave him 2 years guaranteed. No way can he be counted on as a starter next year, and he'll likely be on the DL about 2 months out of the season. Will he be paid too much for his 2006 role? Most likely yes. However, he contributed when we needed him in the postseason, so it will make it a lot easier to swallow.

[beck72]

He's going to be in the bullpen, good chance he doesn't get to 120 innings.

The sox paying $5 mill for a long reliever next yr doesn't make much sense

[Rowand44]

you'll all be the first ones complaining when him and Joe Crede are competing to see who can get to the mendoza line first in April...

This coming from the person who want absolutely ape s*** on Gload cause he made one error. Nobody is demanding we trade Aaron but he might be the best trade chip for a big bat because of Anderson.

[qwerty]

I said there is no reason to MOVE A PROVEN PLAYER to put in a rookie who might or might not do s*** in the majors....

 

Now if we don't resign Konerko and we have no one else available then by all means give him his shot... But you sure as hell don't trade proven cheap talent so you can do it when you can just as easily trade the prospect...

 

I never said Anderson sucked and to never give him a shot... but you don't trade the proven player to give him one unless he's overpaid... which he's not..

 

Some of you are acting like Anderson is some kind of god... you'll all be the first ones complaining when him and Joe Crede are competing to see who can get to the mendoza line first in April...

 

You have to realize rowand is a s***ty hitter ( he is until he proves 2004 was not a fluke... and i have serious doubts). That is all i want from you.

[Rowand44]

The sox paying $5 mill for a long reliever next yr doesn't make much sense

Ya, well it's going to happen. The two year contract was obviously not the best of Kenny's moves but he wanted that 5th starter and atleast we had a major league starter for the majority of last year. The Duke proved he can be a pretty solid reliever, he might end up being some sort of set up man next year, wouldn't surprise me at all. I am almost positive though that he'll be here, he'll be a big part of the pen and the 6th starter in 06. Whether any of us think it's the right move or not that is what is most likey going to happen.

[SSH2005]

Remember, this team is also built around the clubhouse attitude.  Rowand is a great team player, and one of the favorites in the clubhouse from what I've read.  Kenny made a huge deal about not messing with chemistry at the trade deadline, and it worked out for him. 

I don't really understand why he would trade a clubhouse leader, while he thinks so highly of chemistry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not everyone is a "clubhouse leader." Sooner or later, you trade guys off your team when they have viable, cheaper replacements. The Rowand / Anderson situation is a perfect example. We need help in other areas (#3 hitter) and Rowand is our best trading chip. Anderson is our top outfield prospect and will have to play sooner or later. I think people get way to attached to certain players and never want to see them leave. Players come and go. It's just a part of baseball.

 

The sox paying $5 mill for a long reliever next yr doesn't make much sense

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless we can dump his contract, we're better off getting some innings from him in that role than as a 5th starter over McCarthy. Why cut him, pay his entire contract, and get nothing from him?

Edited November 11, 2005 by SSH2005

[Felix]

Not everyone is a "clubhouse leader."  Sooner or later, you trade guys off your team when they have viable, cheaper replacements.  The Rowand / Anderson situation is a perfect example.  We need help in other areas (#3 hitter) and Rowand is our best trading chip.  Anderson is our top outfield prospect and will have to play sooner or later.  I think people get way to attached to certain players and never want to see them leave.  Players come and go.  It's just a part of baseball.

If a Rowand trade is for a big bat, then again, thats ok. But trading a proven centerfielder for another pitcher doesnt make sense.

This is what I said in one of my first posts in this thread..

Edited November 11, 2005 by Felix

[CWSGuy406]

I don't think the sox will be [and shouldn't be] counting on El Duque to throw much in 06.

 

Why do the Sox need a starter ready to step in for 2006? Isn't that what Haigwood/Broadway are for? If things go as planned, they should be just about ready for '06, with Liotta and Gonzalez also knocking on the door.

 

El Duque, if not traded, will be the our swingman. He'll be the fourth-seventh inning guy incase one of our starters has a rough (and short) outing. If he's relied upon to throw about 80-100 innings, I think that role is perfect for him. He should pitch a whole lot better when he's told to throw two-three innings at a time, rather than a five-seven. It was great seeing him in Boston actually blowing hitters away -- he hit 93! Did he ever hit 93 as a starter? He might have here and there, but I doubt it.

 

You act like our staff is made up of five Kerry Woods'. You can pretty much (knock on wood) pencil in Garland and Buehrle for 200 IP. Freddy Garcia gets knicked up once in a while, but his 162 game average for IP is 222. Contreras hasn't missed any significant time (that I know of) in his career, and McCarthy doesn't strike me as the guy who's going to have arm troubles -- he's not throwing a blazing fastball, and he doesn't rely on a hard slider. He's a fastball/changeup/overhand-curveball pitcher -- not exactly a guy who should throw out his arm.

 

Trading Rowand for a guy who might not even help the team this year (unless that prospect is then shipped off for a bat) is silly, IMO.

[SSH2005]

If a Rowand trade is for a big bat, then again, thats ok.  But trading a proven centerfielder for another pitcher doesnt make sense.

This is what I said in one of my first posts in this thread..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless they trade Rowand for a pitcher and then trade that pitcher for a big bat, I agree with you. The main point I was trying to get across is that Rowand is our best trade option because we have a viable replacement for him. We don't really have that at any other position so Rowand is the guy we would have to trade.

Edited November 11, 2005 by SSH2005

[Felix]

Why do the Sox need a starter ready to step in for 2006?  Isn't that what Haigwood/Broadway are for?  If things go as planned, they should be just about ready for '06, with Liotta and Gonzalez also knocking on the door. 

 

El Duque, if not traded, will be the our swingman.  He'll be the fourth-seventh inning guy incase one of our starters has a rough (and short) outing.  If he's relied upon to throw about 80-100 innings, I think that role is perfect for him.  He should pitch a whole lot better when he's told to throw two-three innings at a time, rather than a five-seven.  It was great seeing him in Boston actually blowing hitters away -- he hit 93!  Did he ever hit 93 as a starter?  He might have here and there, but I doubt it.

 

You act like our staff is made up of five Kerry Woods'.  You can pretty much (knock on wood) pencil in Garland and Buehrle for 200 IP.  Freddy Garcia gets knicked up once in a while, but his 162 game average for IP is 222.  Contreras hasn't missed any significant time (that I know of) in his career, and McCarthy doesn't strike me as the guy who's going to have arm troubles -- he's not throwing a blazing fastball, and he doesn't rely on a hard slider.  He's a fastball/changeup/overhand-curveball pitcher -- not exactly a guy who should throw out his arm.

 

Trading Rowand for a guy who might not even help the team this year (unless that prospect is then shipped off for a bat) is silly, IMO.

Exactly.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Let Brian Borchard 2K6 Anderson stay in the minors...

 

Joe Borchard was going to be a stud too... remember him...

 

So forgive me if i'd rather not keep the underpaid guy who busts his ass every game and has never hit below .270 with gold glove defense.... AND IS PROVED!!!!

 

Brian Borchard can stay in the minors... Trade him.... BUT DON'T TRADE OUR PROVEN TALENT TO MAKE ROOM FOR A ROOKIE!!!! NOT TO SAVE A FEW MILLION DOLLARS!!!! FOR A 7th starter we don't need...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy

[Felix]

Unless they trade Rowand for a pitcher and that pitcher for a big bat, I agree with you.  The main point I was trying to get across is that Rowand is our best trade option because we have a viable replacement for him.  We don't really have that at any other position so Rowand is the guy we would have to trade.

Well, depends on what you mean by a viable replacement. For the future, yea, we got plenty of outfielders to take his place, but in 2006, I don't think we have someone who can put up his numbers (offensively and defensively). Anderson is a better option down the road assuming he doesn't become Borch (which he won't), but for 2006, I think Rowand is a better option.

[SSH2005]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't you know that if one highly touted outfielder is a bust, the next one surely will be too?

 

Well, depends on what you mean by a viable replacement.  For the future, yea, we got plenty of outfielders to take his place, but in 2006, I don't think we have someone who can put up his numbers (offensively and defensively).  Anderson is a better option down the road assuming he doesn't become Borch (which he won't), but for 2006, I think Rowand is a better option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rowand's .736 OPS is easily replaceable. It's not like he was even good offensively this past season. Don't forget his 32 walks and 116 strikeouts. How much worse could Anderson really be?

Edited November 11, 2005 by SSH2005