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.

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, 200718 yr by Dick Allen

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.

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.

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.

forget about it! especially, since we have the best #2 hitter in baseball in Orlando Caberera.

There's no arguing with that.

Done and done.

 

Also, Cintron waived.

 

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....rink-in-ci.html

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.

 

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, 200718 yr by kane0730

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.

 

Roster stands at 39 now, so we have room for our CF.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

 

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.

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.

 

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?

theirs kenny press confrence call on main page of mlb.com

ESPN adds that Linebrink has some sort of no-trade protection in the contract as well.

 

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.

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.

Not real happy about a no trade clause for a middle reliever.

 

 

Niether am I.

Edited November 29, 200718 yr by WilliamTell

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.