DBAHO Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 11:40 AM) So, if we put a pitcher in the most pitcher friendly park in baseball, he might start having success. That's not a very high standard. The Padres aren't the best example, and I shouldn't have used them, but I only did because I remembered that they were a team that were interested in trading for him, but the Yanks didn't want to make the deal. Some SP's just do better out of New York and that environment. Jose Contreras for example before he started getting too old and injury prone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 06:50 PM) The Padres aren't the best example, and I shouldn't have used them, but I only did because I remembered that they were a team that were interested in trading for him, but the Yanks didn't want to make the deal. Some SP's just do better out of New York and that environment. Jose Contreras for example before he started getting too old and injury prone. Everyone can't wait to unload Contreras and are doing cartwheels about Vazquez's extension. It might shock everyone that in August and September 2007 combined, Vazquez had a 3.94 ERA. Not bad. Contreras, 3.72. Edited November 28, 2007 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 07:04 PM) Whats your point? I thought September stats didn't count? That's why I also threw out some August stats. My point is Contreras can come back next year and be a pretty good pitcher. I am one who doesn't think he's done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 05:01 PM) Everyone can't wait to unload Contreras and are doing cartwheels about Vazquez's extension. It might shock everyone that in August and September 2007 combined, Vazquez had a 3.94 ERA. Not bad. Contreras, 3.72. It really is hard to justify moving Contreras right now, at least to my eyes, esp. now that Garland has been moved, unless we're obviously upgrading that slot. The best justification for wanting to do so is simply thinking that Jose is finished; that the early part of last year wasn't just an outlier and he will never return to any sort of form. THat's a belief I understand, even if I'm hoping it isn't true. Let's put it this way; as currently constructed, the 2008 White sox will go wherever Contreras, Danks, and Floyd can take them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Balta, i think we have to add defense and a dramatic improvement in the offense to the equation. i like how we signed linebrink and traded for the Gold Glove SS who is perfect in the clubhouse. we're bound to add another gold glover in CF in either jones or rowand (defense is damn near gold glove worthy and he has great range) so that will only help the pitching improve. if we net Jones to go with paulie, dye, and thome...forget about it! especially, since we have the best #2 hitter in baseball in Orlando Caberera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 12:17 AM) forget about it! especially, since we have the best #2 hitter in baseball in Orlando Caberera. There's no arguing with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Done and done. Also, Cintron waived. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....rink-in-ci.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) Done and done. Also, Cintron waived. Good and good. Though I was holding out hope that 4th year for Linebrink was an option, or there were incentives involved, or something. Why the hell does Gonzalez keep pedaling this need for a middle infielder? Even if Cintron and Uribe gone, I'd much rather seem then go cheap for a bench guy like Bourgeois, Getz and/or Ozuna, than go out and spend a bunch of money they could use on the STARTING positions in the outfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kane0730 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) Why the hell does Gonzalez keep pedaling this need for a middle infielder? Even if Cintron and Uribe gone, I'd much rather seem then go cheap for a bench guy like Bourgeois, Getz and/or Ozuna, than go out and spend a bunch of money they could use on the STARTING positions in the outfield. Maybe he doesn't think Richar will be starting @ 2nd. Edited November 28, 2007 by kane0730 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(kane0730 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) Maybe he doesn't think Richar will be the Sox starting @ 2nd. The noise coming out of the organization says Richar is probably it. But, you (or he) may be right - maybe they aren't so confident in Richar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Roster stands at 39 now, so we have room for our CF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) The noise coming out of the organization says Richar is probably it. But, you (or he) may be right - maybe they aren't so confident in Richar. They might just be hedging their bets too, having learned a lesson from one Brian Anderson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) Roster stands at 39 now, so we have room for our CF. No. It's 40. Pods name came off when he was DFA'd -- He was just in limbo for 10 days -- Today was a 1-for-1 swap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) Roster stands at 39 now, so we have room for our CF. Or, if the Sox plan on trading for one or making another move or two, adding Fernando Hernandez to the 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) Or, if the Sox plan on trading for one or making another move or two, adding Fernando Hernandez to the 40. doesn't matter. Deadline was last Wednesday to be protected for the Rule 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) doesn't matter. Deadline was last Wednesday to be protected for the Rule 5 Just curious... could the Sox decide to spend the $50k or whatever it costs to buy someone back in the Rule 5 that they already had, if they decide they have the roster room at that time? Not that I think its likely, but, you never know. And if they don't get drafted, does the "home" team get a chance to re-sign them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:45 PM) Just curious... could the Sox decide to spend the $50k or whatever it costs to buy someone back in the Rule 5 that they already had, if they decide they have the roster room at that time? Not that I think its likely, but, you never know. And if they don't get drafted, does the "home" team get a chance to re-sign them? Theoretically, sure... It would have to be more than $50K, and Bud wouldn't approve. Hernandez is pretty much gone. There's nothing we can do now but beat off to Cole Armstrong box scores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) Theoretically, sure... It would have to be more than $50K, and Bud wouldn't approve. Hernandez is pretty much gone. There's nothing we can do now but beat off to Cole Armstrong box scores. I don't get part that either. If I recall, you had said Armstrong didn't need to be protected yet. So why bother doing it? Not like they need to call up a catcher in December. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) Theoretically, sure... It would have to be more than $50K, and Bud wouldn't approve. Hernandez is pretty much gone. There's nothing we can do now but beat off to Cole Armstrong box scores. Do you seriously believe some team will keep him on their 25 man roster for the whole year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox2334 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 theirs kenny press confrence call on main page of mlb.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 ESPN adds that Linebrink has some sort of no-trade protection in the contract as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:55 AM) ESPN adds that Linebrink has some sort of no-trade protection in the contract as well. Oh goody. My thoughts on this deal are pretty well known. I hope Linebrink produces what he did in San Diego for us. Am I confident of that happening? No. So I just hope we're not going to regret this deal compared to what Yabuta and Kobayashi received, and that we're not "stuck" with Linebrink if he doesn't produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 04:27 PM) Oh goody. My thoughts on this deal are pretty well known. I hope Linebrink produces what he did in San Diego for us. Am I confident of that happening? No. So I just hope we're not going to regret this deal compared to what Yabuta and Kobayashi received, and that we're not "stuck" with Linebrink if he doesn't produce. Not real happy about a no trade clause for a middle reliever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Soxfest @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 05:15 PM) Not real happy about a no trade clause for a middle reliever. Niether am I. Edited November 29, 2007 by WilliamTell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I'm reading it more like he has control over which teams he accept a trade to. Rather then a full not going anywhere, no matter what clause. 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.