If we only move 1 guy, moving him for "equal value" is acceptable if that is the best we can do. We simply don't know how desperate these teams are for pitching yet, and they may be a lot more willing to part with money than with prospects. McCarthy must get into the rotation, and we must get something for one of those guys, and we must free up some money to re-up with Buehrle this offseason if he's the one not traded. Those must happen, no matter what our offers are. The rest all depends on what others offer us.

 

 

I will second that.

I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young.

 

I agree. Pitching is always more valuable. But his overall concept is accurrate.

I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young.

 

 

AND, I wonder if it would help get his brother Jordan, who, if I remember correctly, was drafted by the Sox by decided to go to Texas for a few years.

I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young.

They're definitely not equals.

 

What I meant -- and I should have clarified it within the first post -- was Young is rated at a similar position among OF's as Danks is among pitchers. If you believe BA's 2006 ratings it wouldn't suggest so, but you remove all those who were currently in baseball before 2006(Jenks/Liriano among them) , yet retained "prospect" status, and it's more comparable. I'm sure Danks is bound to climb up the upcoming list.

Edited November 21, 200619 yr by Flash Tizzle

They're definitely not equals.

 

What I meant -- and I should have clarified it within the first post -- was Young is rated at a similar position among OF's as Danks is among pitchers. If you believe BA's 2006 ratings it wouldn't suggest so, but you remove all those who were currently in baseball before 2006(Jenks/Liriano among them) , yet retained "prospect" status, and it's more comparable.

Gotcha, I kind of figured that's what you meant but I think you see where I'm coming from. If we can get an elite pitching prospect by trading one of our starters then I believe the Vazquez trade would have worked out just fine as it would have allowed us to do so.

How about this. If Sox fans had the choice of who was dealt... Which team would you deal with and for what prospects?

I hope the Garland rumour isn't true, unless Michael Young is coming back to us. I am getting antsy for Kenny to do something though. I am tired of hearing about the Cubs.

How about this. If Sox fans had the choice of who was dealt... Which team would you deal with and for what prospects?

 

Vazquez for something similar to what the Sox paid for him, minus the salary dump.

How about this. If Sox fans had the choice of who was dealt... Which team would you deal with and for what prospects?

You'd be hardpressed to find 2 pitching prospects the equal of Hurley and Danks that could actually be had in a trade.

 

That's why I'd be after them, and why I want to deal with the Rangers.

 

My guess is the trade talks broke down because Jon Daniels wanted BA included, and I think Kenny wants to hang onto him, especially after giving away Chris Young.

How about this. If Sox fans had the choice of who was dealt... Which team would you deal with and for what prospects?

 

Vazquez to the Mets for a some sort of combo of Milledge/Heilman/Pelfrey/Humber

Overpaid? He traded a broken down pitcher who won't throw more than140 innings again in his life, a decent middle reliever and a good hittng prospect and a top 25 prospect in all of baseball for an innings eater talented starting pitcher.

 

Fixed.

I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young.

 

I'll be contrarian -- I'll take Chris Young over John Danks anytime. Young profiles as a CF with power, OBP, speed, and a good glove. And he'd play everyday. Moreover, Young's performance at AA and AAA were fantastic. The power display he put on in Birmingham at his age marked him as a special prospect.

 

John Danks numbers don't look like he projects as an ace to me. I'll admit he's young for his leagues and he's a lefty that strikes people out. And he pitched in some tough parks. But his AA ERA was 4.6ish and AAA was 4.33, his WHIP has been around 1.4 and HR/9 1.4. Again maybe that's all PCL-related but he gives up a surprising number of hits and his control isn't great.

 

I'm sure scouts know more than I do, but given the risk in any pitching prospect, Chris Young is much more likely to contribute meaningfully at the major league level than someone like Danks. Danks may turn out to be great, but it's not like his minor league numbers are Felix Hernandezesque.

 

I have to say, I'm shocked to see rumors saying that all Javier Vazquez can bring in return is Nick Masset...a minor league reliever. The way I read it, it sounded like Texas thought Danks for JV one for one was overpaying. If that's really the market for Sox starters, I wouldn't blame KW for sticking McCarthy in AAA and waiting instead of picking up a minor league reliever right now.

I have to say, I'm shocked to see rumors saying that all Javier Vazquez can bring in return is Nick Masset...a minor league reliever. The way I read it, it sounded like Texas thought Danks for JV one for one was overpaying. If that's really the market for Sox starters, I wouldn't blame KW for sticking McCarthy in AAA and waiting instead of picking up a minor league reliever right now.

 

No, that's just because Jon Daniels won't make a trade unless it's highway robbery, save the 6-player trade with San Diego.

Fixed.

 

Wow. I've been fixed. I guess I've reached the pinnacle now.

 

(however, I still disagree.)

Wow. I've been fixed. I guess I've reached the pinnacle now.

 

(however, I still disagree.)

 

Hehe. I didn't mean for it to come off so snarky, but I obviously have strong feelings w/r/t Young (as IlliniKrush or SnB can probably tell you).

 

//locker

I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young.

I like Danks, but Young was our first special prospect in a long time. I typically rate pitching over hitting, but not in Young's case. He could very well be a perennial all star and I rarely say that about prospects (especially ours).

I like Danks, but Young was our first special prospect in a long time. I typically rate pitching over hitting, but not in Young's case. He could very well be a perennial all star and I rarely say that about prospects (especially ours).

I understand that. But I'm taking an elite pitching prospect over an elite hitting prospect no matter what and I just threw Danks names out there cause it's been talked about. It's obviously premature to talk about this considering we don't know what exactly we're getting back yet for one of our starters but I think you understand the point I'm trying to get across.

Is there any strong rumors on Schmidt and Zito? I know Levine was mentioning that Schmidt "is next on Hendry's radar" but that could mean a wide variety of things.

 

Looks like KW may wait to see the losers of the bidding wars for those 2 guys and strike to move a SP at that point.