PDA

View Full Version : A Sox rumor about A Gonzalez??


Pages : [1] 2

Rockabilly
11-10-2009, 10:01 PM
I read on SoxTalk and Prosportsdaily that Harry from ESPN 1000 that claimed he had an inside source that stated Clayton Richard called Daniel Hudson today to inform him that he was a key piece in a trade the Padres & Sox were working on, so that the Sox would get Adrian Gonzalez.

I'm not in Chicago and don't know much about this guy. So has anyone heard this today about the Sox working on a deal with the Padres.

JermaineDye05
11-10-2009, 10:15 PM
Sounds like someone was listening to B&B this afternoon.

I've heard nothing about such a rumor aside from what fans, here on WSI, have said.

tm1119
11-10-2009, 10:16 PM
Couldnt imagine who else we could possibly trade. Flowers? Viciedo? Its obviously gonna take a good deal to get Gonzalez, and there are a lot of teams with a lot better farm systems than us. Unless KW and San Diego's GM have some kind of deal to only deal with each other I cant imagine a package that we could come up with that another team wouldnt best. Its not even like Hudson is a top prospect. Im going to say this is false.

DirtySox
11-10-2009, 10:18 PM
Couldnt imagine who else we could possibly trade. Flowers? Viciedo? Its obviously gonna take a good deal to get Gonzalez, and there are a lot of teams with a lot better farm systems than us. Unless KW and San Diego's GM have some kind of deal to only deal with each other I cant imagine a package that we could come up with that another team wouldnt best. Its not even like Hudson is a top prospect. Im going to say this is false.

Hudson has made a mark with his performance last season. He is certainly makes a top 100 prospect list, maybe even in the top 50.

VMSNS
11-10-2009, 10:21 PM
Left-handed power, and a 1B. We'd have to get rid of Paulie, unless we DH Gonzalez.

I'm also not crazy about giving up Hudson.

Rockabilly
11-10-2009, 10:24 PM
How would Clayton Richard know what the Padres upper mgmt is doing?

DumpJerry
11-10-2009, 10:25 PM
How would Clayton Richard know what the Padres upper mgmt is doing?
Bingo.

Brian26
11-10-2009, 10:28 PM
I don't trust a rumor from Harry as far as I could throw him.

Rockabilly
11-10-2009, 10:32 PM
I guess a lot of people don't listen to his show.

Zisk77
11-10-2009, 10:38 PM
Left-handed power, and a 1B. We'd have to get rid of Paulie, unless we DH Gonzalez.

I'm also not crazy about giving up Hudson.

I would think paulie would DH

getonbckthr
11-10-2009, 10:40 PM
How would Clayton Richard know what the Padres upper mgmt is doing?
Perhaps the Padres upper management was asking Richard what he felt about Hudson as far as mental strength and work ethic.
As far as what kind of package we could offer i'm not really sure. Besides Hudson i'm guessing Flowers and Viciedo for sure. Probably Jordan Danks as well. I don't even know if that would be enough.

Jpgr91
11-10-2009, 10:40 PM
Why would the Sox spend most of their remaining payroll dollars on one player? I think it is easy for anyone to link KW to a rumor because he is always so active.

Jpgr91
11-10-2009, 10:43 PM
Perhaps the Padres upper management was asking Richard what he felt about Hudson as far as mental strength and work ethic.
As far as what kind of package we could offer i'm not really sure. Besides Hudson i'm guessing Flowers and Viciedo for sure. Probably Jordan Danks as well. I don't even know if that would be enough.

I know most companies ask employees about other employees before they are relocated / laid off / promoted.... In all seriousness, the information they would get from Richard would not be worth the chance that the deal could compromised by a leak.

DSpivack
11-10-2009, 10:45 PM
Why would the Sox spend most of their remaining payroll dollars on one player? I think it is easy for anyone to link KW to a rumor because he is always so active.

Gonzalez is signed at $4.75 mil for 2010, I would hope the Sox have more than that to spend this offseason.

DumpJerry
11-10-2009, 10:51 PM
Richard and Hudson never played together. Hudson played only with Great Falls in 2008 and that was late in the season since he was drafted in June. Hudson made his MLB debut two months after Richard was traded.

In other words, how the heck would Richard know more about Hudson than the scouting staff? Also, Hudson is probably Plan A if Freddy fails this year. Plan B is not as strong (or well known).

tm1119
11-10-2009, 10:55 PM
Hudson has made a mark with his performance last season. He is certainly makes a top 100 prospect list, maybe even in the top 50.

Hudson definitely went from a nobody to a somebody, but whether or not he makes the top 100 prospects list is debatable. Wouldnt surprise me, and Im not saying whether he should or shouldnt but he certainly isnt a lock either. There have been way too many guys who have had 1 great year and then faded into nothing to crown Hudson as anything at this point. I actually wouldnt mind the Sox trading him for a position of need, as long as that player has a contract past this season. His value may very well never be higher than it is right now.

JermaineDye05
11-10-2009, 10:58 PM
I don't care if this rumor is true or completely fabricated. I'm actually happy because it sounds like a new running rumor joke for WSI ala the hearing KW on the cell phone.

"Carl Crawford is coming to the White Sox"

"How do you know?"

"Clayton Richard called [player x] and told him that he was the center piece for the deal"

hi im skot
11-10-2009, 11:04 PM
Ugh.

thomas35forever
11-10-2009, 11:39 PM
Why would Clayton Richard know or care about what the White Sox are doing? His days here are over. He's stuck in San Diego for the time being.

Rdy2PlayBall
11-10-2009, 11:51 PM
Why would Clayton Richard know or care about what the White Sox are doing? His days here are over. He's stuck in San Diego for the time being.Umm... it's a trade rumor between the Sox and Padres. It sounds like it's about his team, and he has the number of the other guy in the rumor. Not really being a White Sox stalker. xD

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 12:55 AM
Hudson definitely went from a nobody to a somebody, but whether or not he makes the top 100 prospects list is debatable. Wouldnt surprise me, and Im not saying whether he should or shouldnt but he certainly isnt a lock either. There have been way too many guys who have had 1 great year and then faded into nothing to crown Hudson as anything at this point. I actually wouldnt mind the Sox trading him for a position of need, as long as that player has a contract past this season. His value may very well never be higher than it is right now.

Throw in Torres and Jordan Danks too then lets start the season...

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 01:02 AM
Pods LF
Beckham 2B
TCQ RF
Gonzales DH/1B
PK DH/1B
AJP C
TCM SS
Teahen 3B
Rios CF

Peavy
BurlyMon
Floyd
Danks
Garcia

Bench:
Kotsay
BU Catcher
Nix
+2 (Lillibridge?)

Is it February yet? I can't stop giggling...

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 01:19 AM
Pods LF
Beckham 2B
TCQ RF
Gonzales DH/1B
PK DH/1B
AJP C
TCM SS
Teahen 3B
Rios CF

Peavy
BurlyMon
Floyd
Danks
Garcia

Bench:
Kotsay
BU Catcher
Nix
+2 (Lillibridge?)

Is it February yet? I can't stop giggling...

If the White Sox were, by some miracle, able to acquire Adrian Gonzalez without giving up Danks or Floyd, then I'd like to see them trade Pauly for possibly some bullpen help and maybe a low risk/high reward prospect. It gives the Sox salary relief and I'm sure there are some teams on the West Coast (Angels) that would be interested. You can then put TCQ at DH and slot Jordan Danks in the OF, assuming he's ready and that he's not in the deal for Gonzalez.

gr8mexico
11-11-2009, 02:30 AM
Getting Adrain Gonzalez would be amazing but Im sure it wont happend.
Maybe a lineup like this could work "IF" the Sox can trade for him
1. Coco Crisp CF
2. Gordon Beckham 2B
3. Adrian Gonzalez 1B
4. Carlos Quentin DH
5. AJP C
6. Alexei Ramirez SS
7. Alex Rios RF
8. Mark Teahen 3B
9. Jordan Danks LF

Trade Paul Konerko for what ever they can get for him.

Craig Grebeck
11-11-2009, 05:28 AM
We don't have the ammo. And if we're using all of our prospects on a position player, I should hope he'd play up the middle.

soxfandy
11-11-2009, 05:51 AM
I doubt we have the ammo to land adrian gonzalez. I do believe that hudson would be a start to landing heath bell though. He is rumored to be on the market also. I would just get nervous that he would end up like the last reliever we got from san diego (Linebrink)

spawn
11-11-2009, 07:21 AM
I read on SoxTalk and Prosportsdaily that Harry from ESPN 1000 that claimed he had an inside source that stated Clayton Richard called Daniel Hudson today to inform him that he was a key piece in a trade the Padres & Sox were working on, so that the Sox would get Adrian Gonzalez.

I'm not in Chicago and don't know much about this guy. So has anyone heard this today about the Sox working on a deal with the Padres.
I heard it last night. Harry did say this. Harry wouldn't reveal his source, so it was probably a cleaning lady working at whatever hotel the GM meetings are taking place.

white sox bill
11-11-2009, 07:28 AM
How would Clayton Richard know what the Padres upper mgmt is doing?
Baggage claim on concourse B at San Diego International?

dickallen15
11-11-2009, 08:27 AM
Perhaps the Padres upper management was asking Richard what he felt about Hudson as far as mental strength and work ethic.
As far as what kind of package we could offer i'm not really sure. Besides Hudson i'm guessing Flowers and Viciedo for sure. Probably Jordan Danks as well. I don't even know if that would be enough.


Why? They didn't play together.

soxyess
11-11-2009, 08:34 AM
Baggage claim on concourse B at San Diego International?

Didn't someone here start something saying they heard Kenny at an airport suggesting trades on his cell phone?

Balfanman
11-11-2009, 09:08 AM
Why? They didn't play together.

That was my first thought after reading the first post in this thread. Unless they knew each other from college or by some other means I can't imagine them being close friends.

Jpgr91
11-11-2009, 09:46 AM
Gonzalez is signed at $4.75 mil for 2010, I would hope the Sox have more than that to spend this offseason.

For some reason I thought he was arbitration eligable. My bad!

Rockabilly
11-11-2009, 10:05 AM
I have seen a report that Votto might be available if a team is willing to take on a big contract like Harang.

Craig Grebeck
11-11-2009, 10:09 AM
I doubt we have the ammo to land adrian gonzalez. I do believe that hudson would be a start to landing heath bell though. He is rumored to be on the market also. I would just get nervous that he would end up like the last reliever we got from san diego (Linebrink)
Why trade for Bell when you can just use Hudson in the late innings? He'd probably be as effective and he can eventually make his way to the rotation.

Zisk77
11-11-2009, 10:21 AM
Why trade for Bell when you can just use Hudson in the late innings? He'd probably be as effective and he can eventually make his way to the rotation.

Totally agree. Hudson would be the last prospect I would think of trading. I am guessing he will be our long reliever so he could go into the rotation easier if Freddy Tanks. Carrasco probably moves deeper into the rotation.

twsoxfan5
11-11-2009, 10:27 AM
Didn't someone here start something saying they heard Kenny at an airport suggesting trades on his cell phone?

Yes and it is has been a long running, unfunny joke that we get to see at least once in every rumor thread.

soltrain21
11-11-2009, 10:32 AM
That was my first thought after reading the first post in this thread. Unless they knew each other from college or by some other means I can't imagine them being close friends.

Maybe they became friends during Spring Training or something. It's not entirely impossible.

FielderJones
11-11-2009, 10:37 AM
Yes and it is has been a long running, unfunny joke that we get to see at least once in every rumor thread.


I find mockery of nonsense never gets old; it's always a funny joke.

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 10:42 AM
For some reason I thought he was arbitration eligable. My bad!

He signed a 4 year extension through his Arb years. There's also a club option for $5.5M for next year. I don't know if that gets affected by a trade Cots doesn't say.

The next two years are the meat of our WS window. If the Sox can actually get this done they should be willing to pretty much do whatever it takes to make it happen.

I don't like the idea of trading PK move him to DH or let him and Gonzalez split time there.

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 10:47 AM
I find mockery of nonsense never gets old; it's always a funny joke.

Whether this is LIKELY to get done is kind of moot to the point of how cool of if it would be if it actually DID get done. :D:

I'd think Hudson and Torres would be a pretty decent starting place to offer in any trade discussion for any player so if indeed Gonzalez is available and if indeed KW is willing to part with Hudson (I'm sure he's willing to part with Torres and maybe his talking up of Jordan Danks recently is in part to increase his trade value) then the Sox should be willing to empty the clip to make this happen. The one player I'd be loathe to trade would be Flowers as they need catching prospects but if it's Flowers and Hudson for Gonzalez, I'll survive...

dickallen15
11-11-2009, 10:50 AM
Whether this is LIKELY to get done is kind of moot to the point of how cool of if it would be if it actually DID get done. :D:

I'd think Hudson and Torres would be a pretty decent starting place to offer in any trade discussion for any player so if indeed Gonzalez is available and if indeed KW is willing to part with Hudson (I'm sure he's willing to part with Torres and maybe his talking up of Jordan Danks recently is in part to increase his trade value) then the Sox should be willing to empty the clip to make this happen. The one player I'd be loathe to trade would be Flowers as they need catching prospects but if it's Flowers and Hudson for Gonzalez, I'll survive...

Torres is a throw in "prospect". Its not like he's a 21 year old fireballer, he's 27 years old. They would want a whole lot more than Hudson and Torres. They aren't the starting place, they would be the ending place, with a lot more before them, for a 40 homer guy who makes what Gonzalez makes.

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 10:58 AM
Torres is a throw in "prospect". Its not like he's a 21 year old fireballer, he's 27 years old. They would want a whole lot more than Hudson and Torres. They aren't the starting place, they would be the ending place, with a lot more before them, for a 40 homer guy who makes what Gonzalez makes.

Starting place of the offer. I agree it would take more than that to get it done.

Tragg
11-11-2009, 11:09 AM
Why trade for Bell when you can just use Hudson in the late innings? He'd probably be as effective and he can eventually make his way to the rotation.
Absolutely. Hudson darn sure ought to be in our pen next year, if not in the rotation.
Going after 32 year old Heath Bell now is buying high, in the extreme.

soxfandy
11-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Why trade for Bell when you can just use Hudson in the late innings? He'd probably be as effective and he can eventually make his way to the rotation.

Trust me i don't want heath bell either. I was just throwing it out there because I dont believe we have enough to get gonzalez and bell is the only other player on that team that anybody would want. Sorry for the confusion, but I'm a big hudson fan too. I would only trade him as part of a package for an impact player and heath bell isn't that!

Craig Grebeck
11-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Whether this is LIKELY to get done is kind of moot to the point of how cool of if it would be if it actually DID get done. :D:

I'd think Hudson and Torres would be a pretty decent starting place to offer in any trade discussion for any player so if indeed Gonzalez is available and if indeed KW is willing to part with Hudson (I'm sure he's willing to part with Torres and maybe his talking up of Jordan Danks recently is in part to increase his trade value) then the Sox should be willing to empty the clip to make this happen. The one player I'd be loathe to trade would be Flowers as they need catching prospects but if it's Flowers and Hudson for Gonzalez, I'll survive...
I see this a lot. I just don't believe that there are any GMs out there who buy into another GM's press conference talent evaluations. Sure, KW could be bluffing or maybe even dangling a carrot for Jordan, but GMs are more wont to talk to their scouts or look at Jordan's poor contact rates/batting statistics.

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 11:26 AM
I see this a lot. I just don't believe that there are any GMs out there who buy into another GM's press conference talent evaluations. Sure, KW could be bluffing or maybe even dangling a carrot for Jordan, but GMs are more wont to talk to their scouts or look at Jordan's poor contact rates/batting statistics.

Marketing never hurts and I'm sure most of the long time GM's are on a first name basis with each other and talk about their evaluations of their own prospects. I'm sure it's not the be all and end all of any trade discussion involving those prospects, but it behooves them to be reasonably honest about their evaluations or get shut out of discussions for being homers and conmen.

I wonder if KW can trade Jordan without pissing off John anyway. He might have to offer them as a package and that definitely would be a starting place for Gonzalez and though I'm not as happy with it as I would be with Hudson I'd still consider it especially if they could sign Gonzalez to a multi-year deal.

Chez
11-11-2009, 12:55 PM
The only way I see the Sox landing Gonzalez from SD is if John Danks is part of the trade.

DumpJerry
11-11-2009, 04:34 PM
Gonzalez was awarded his second Gold Glove today.

Rohan
11-11-2009, 05:14 PM
Gonzalez was awarded his second Gold Glove today.

Spicy... I doubt anything comes of this rumor.

roylestillman
11-11-2009, 06:07 PM
Maybe we're getting Andy Gonzalez back.

Red Barchetta
11-11-2009, 06:42 PM
Whether this is LIKELY to get done is kind of moot to the point of how cool of if it would be if it actually DID get done. :D:

I'd think Hudson and Torres would be a pretty decent starting place to offer in any trade discussion for any player so if indeed Gonzalez is available and if indeed KW is willing to part with Hudson (I'm sure he's willing to part with Torres and maybe his talking up of Jordan Danks recently is in part to increase his trade value) then the Sox should be willing to empty the clip to make this happen. The one player I'd be loathe to trade would be Flowers as they need catching prospects but if it's Flowers and Hudson for Gonzalez, I'll survive...

Perhaps Konerko is part of the deal. (I know he would have to approve) I have read more than once about his love affair with California and who knows what Ozzie/KW have discussed in terms of leadership, etc. Paulie, Thome and Dye were all quiet leaders. Time for a change perhaps. Plus the addition of Konerko would soften the blow of losing Gonzalez for San Diego.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 06:47 PM
Perhaps Konerko is part of the deal. (I know he would have to approve) I have read more than once about his love affair with California and who knows what Ozzie/KW have discussed in terms of leadership, etc. Paulie, Thome and Dye were all quiet leaders. Time for a change perhaps. Plus the addition of Konerko would soften the blow of losing Gonzalez for San Diego.

As much as Paulie loves California, I don't think he wants to go to a team that is rebuilding.

Craig Grebeck
11-11-2009, 06:48 PM
Perhaps Konerko is part of the deal. (I know he would have to approve) I have read more than once about his love affair with California and who knows what Ozzie/KW have discussed in terms of leadership, etc. Paulie, Thome and Dye were all quiet leaders. Time for a change perhaps. Plus the addition of Konerko would soften the blow of losing Gonzalez for San Diego.
Sigh. Please, since you're suggesting Konerko to San Diego is even possible, explain to me how a team with no money will benefit from adding an overpaid, declining corner player to their payroll? Keep in mind that he will make roughly 1/3 of the payroll and will block their best offensive prospect.

SoxNation05
11-11-2009, 07:09 PM
Whether this is LIKELY to get done is kind of moot to the point of how cool of if it would be if it actually DID get done. :D:

I'd think Hudson and Torres would be a pretty decent starting place to offer in any trade discussion for any player so if indeed Gonzalez is available and if indeed KW is willing to part with Hudson (I'm sure he's willing to part with Torres and maybe his talking up of Jordan Danks recently is in part to increase his trade value) then the Sox should be willing to empty the clip to make this happen. The one player I'd be loathe to trade would be Flowers as they need catching prospects but if it's Flowers and Hudson for Gonzalez, I'll survive...
Was that a joke or did you just forget to make it teal?

You'd think you would be a first time poster saying something like that.

Frater Perdurabo
11-11-2009, 07:54 PM
Sigh. Please, since you're suggesting Konerko to San Diego is even possible, explain to me how a team with no money will benefit from adding an overpaid, declining corner player to their payroll? Keep in mind that he will make roughly 1/3 of the payroll and will block their best offensive prospect.

Paulie to the Giants
Gonzalez to the Sox
Prospects to the Padres
Make it happen!
:D:

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 08:10 PM
Just out of curiosity, what is Adrian's contract status? If the Sox traded for him, how much would they have to pay for him and for how long would they have control of him?

russ99
11-11-2009, 08:15 PM
The only way I see the Sox landing Gonzalez from SD is if John Danks is part of the trade.

Ya never know, could happen, if John doesn't lock down a contract and gets closer to an arb hearing.

Our 4 arbitration guys are certainly the most likely to get moved in a big deal to get a solid bat in order of trade probability: Jenks, Danks, Quentin, Pena.

But then Kenny would need to get a replacement for the player traded...

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 08:20 PM
Ya never know, could happen, if John doesn't lock down a contract and gets closer to an arb hearing.

Our 4 arbitration guys are certainly the most likely to get moved in a big deal to get a solid bat in order of trade probability: Jenks, Danks, Quentin, Pena.

But then Kenny would need to get a replacement for the player traded...

Pena for Gonzalez straight up!!!! Get it done Kenny!!!!

Lillian
11-11-2009, 08:22 PM
Could they be counting on a full recovery and contribution from Jeff Marquez? I never hear thing about him. Is he expected to be ready to contribute next year? If so, maybe they figure they can afford to trade someone like Hudson.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Could they be counting on a full recovery and contribution from Jeff Marquez? I never hear thing about him. Is he expected to be ready to contribute next year? If so, maybe they figure they can afford to trade someone like Hudson.

The only thing that I can foresee Marquez contributing to this club is a throw-in player for some trade. He was awful last year. I don't know what happened but he was horrible, so the stats say.

DirtySox
11-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Could they be counting on a full recovery and contribution from Jeff Marquez? I never hear thing about him. Is he expected to be ready to contribute next year? If so, maybe they figure they can afford to trade someone like Hudson.

Jeff Marquez won't be contributing to the big league club at anytime in the near future. He wasn't considered good even before his injury.

dickallen15
11-11-2009, 09:14 PM
Perhaps Konerko is part of the deal. (I know he would have to approve) I have read more than once about his love affair with California and who knows what Ozzie/KW have discussed in terms of leadership, etc. Paulie, Thome and Dye were all quiet leaders. Time for a change perhaps. Plus the addition of Konerko would soften the blow of losing Gonzalez for San Diego.
Why would SD trade a guy making $5 million and get back a player not as good making $12 million?

dickallen15
11-11-2009, 09:16 PM
Could they be counting on a full recovery and contribution from Jeff Marquez? I never hear thing about him. Is he expected to be ready to contribute next year? If so, maybe they figure they can afford to trade someone like Hudson.


The only way Marquez contributes to the 2010 White Sox is if he becomes a beer vendor.

DirtySox
11-11-2009, 09:16 PM
Why would SD trade a guy making $5 million and get back a player not as good making $12 million?

Because video game trades are fun. A basis in reality isn't required.

Domeshot17
11-11-2009, 09:36 PM
Could they be counting on a full recovery and contribution from Jeff Marquez? I never hear thing about him. Is he expected to be ready to contribute next year? If so, maybe they figure they can afford to trade someone like Hudson.

Is this a joke?!?!?!?!?!?! JEFF MARQUEZ!!!!! The guy who had an ERA over 9 last year? We expect anything from him? He was is and always will be Dog ****. If he is on our team next year we are in seriously trouble.

I would put way more stock in the idea THIS IS A BULL **** RUMOR then the Sox are going to count on Jeff Marquez. Seriously, this guy is more likely to waived and taken off the 40 man then make the 25 man.

Brian26
11-11-2009, 09:43 PM
If he is on our team next year we are in seriously trouble.

Brings back fond memories. Beckham had a nice year at Birmingham, didn't he?

Brian26
11-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Because video game trades are fun. A basis in reality isn't required.

Seems like we got Peavy in one of those dreaded video game trades though.

NLaloosh
11-11-2009, 09:51 PM
I thought that the reason they traded for Teahen was that he would be the centerpiece of the Adrian Gonzalez deal.

Wouldn't Teahen, Viciedo and C.J. Retherford be enough?

I wouldn't do it though because who would play third base?

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 09:53 PM
Seems like we got Peavy in one of those dreaded video game trades though.

You'd like to think so, but the CPU wouldn't accept that trade in my season :o:. Then again, I could only trade a max of 3 for 1.

doublem23
11-11-2009, 09:54 PM
I wouldn't do it though because who would play third base?

BWiJ1ltQeEY

DirtySox
11-11-2009, 09:54 PM
Seems like we got Peavy in one of those dreaded video game trades though.

I dunno about that. Poreda and Carter were legit prospects and the Pads desperately needed to dump salary. Quite a bit different than sending a 12 million dollar declining first baseman to a team that still needs to cut salary for a premier superstar player, both offensively and defensively.

doublem23
11-11-2009, 09:57 PM
Seems like we got Peavy in one of those dreaded video game trades though.

AI owners don't go through messy divorces and bankruptcy.

gr8mexico
11-11-2009, 10:02 PM
Seems like we got Peavy in one of those dreaded video game trades though.
Dont forget Alex Rios.
I think the Sox really need to go after Adrian Gonzalez.
Even if they have to give up Gavin Floyd.
Gavin Floyd, Jon Link, Brent Morel, C.J Retherford for Adrian Gonzalez.
Dan Hudson can be the fifth starter

DirtySox
11-11-2009, 10:04 PM
Dont forget Alex Rios.
I think the Sox really need to go after Adrian Gonzalez.
Even if they have to give up Gavin Floyd.
Gavin Floyd, Jon Link, Brent Morel, C.J Retherford for Adrian Gonzalez.

We traded for Alex Rios? News to me.

And that package is completely underwhelming aside from Floyd. Any package for A-Gon will have Hudson and/or Flowers in it.

Lillian
11-11-2009, 10:04 PM
Geeees!! O.k. I get it. Marquez is not even a prospect. I just thought that his short and bad season was because of his injury. He seemed to be pretty highly regarde.
Wow, that means that the Swisher deal was really a bust. We didn't get anything for him, did we? Betemit, is already pretty much a bust.
I suppose there is still hope for Nunez.

Rdy2PlayBall
11-11-2009, 10:06 PM
Dont forget Alex Rios.
I think the Sox really need to go after Adrian Gonzalez.
Even if they have to give up Gavin Floyd.
Gavin Floyd, Jon Link, Brent Morel, C.J Retherford for Adrian Gonzalez.
Dan Hudson can be the fifth starterNOOOOOO!!!!

That's a terrible trade. We need Floyd, we don't need a crappy pitching staff with two questionable end of the rotation starters.

DirtySox
11-11-2009, 10:07 PM
Geeees!! O.k. I get it. Marquez is not even a prospect. I just thought that his short and bad season was because of his injury. He seemed to be pretty highly regarde.
Wow, that means that the Swisher deal was really a bust. We didn't get anything for him, did we? Betemit, is already pretty much a bust.
I suppose there is still hope for Nunez.

The trade was horrendous. Nunez might be a decent bullpen piece, but the fact that we sent Kanekoa Texeira to NY along with Swisher is a slap in the face.

gosox41
11-11-2009, 10:32 PM
Couldnt imagine who else we could possibly trade. Flowers? Viciedo? Its obviously gonna take a good deal to get Gonzalez, and there are a lot of teams with a lot better farm systems than us. Unless KW and San Diego's GM have some kind of deal to only deal with each other I cant imagine a package that we could come up with that another team wouldnt best. Its not even like Hudson is a top prospect. Im going to say this is false.

We did overpay for Peavy, maybe the Pads will reuce the asking price a bit as they kind of owe us one.

I think KW did that in a trade a few years ago, I think when he traded Freddy. Wasn't there a second deal made. I may be wrong on that.


Bob

cards press box
11-11-2009, 11:07 PM
I had a feeling that the Sox were at least going to make inquiries about Adrian Gonzalez, so this rumor makes sense to me. The Sox have wanted to add lefty power for the longest time and Gonzalez certainly would provide that. If the Sox get Gonzalez, I suspect that he plays 1B and Paul Konerko becomes the DH.

I don't know if the Sox have the prospects to make a deal with San Diego but the Sox have dealt with the Padres as recently as the Jake Peavy deal last July 31 so it is possible.

voodoochile
11-11-2009, 11:41 PM
Seems like we got Peavy in one of those dreaded video game trades though.

You're ignoring the cash aspects of the trade. PK adds a bunch of salary to SD payroll the Peavy trade subtracted it in mass quantities.

Domeshot17
11-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Brings back fond memories. Beckham had a nice year at Birmingham, didn't he?


Did you really just compare Jeff Marquez to Gordon Beckham??? Really, honestly?

And yes, Welcome to reality, Beckham was on the team last year, and they were terrible and finished a pathetic season. So anyone who said if Becks was on the team last year the sox were doomed was right.

That said, I can't believe you are comparing Beckham to Jeff Marquez.

I think if I was manning 1b for the Sox next year we will be in trouble, so that clearly means they should sign me up because Beckham busted out.

BadBobbyJenks
11-12-2009, 12:34 AM
Brings back fond memories. Beckham had a nice year at Birmingham, didn't he?

If I wasn't already confused enough in this thread.

NLaloosh
11-12-2009, 06:56 AM
BWiJ1ltQeEY

Thank you. I really enjoyed that.

NLaloosh
11-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Gonzalez would be an ideal player for the Sox to add but only if the Sox can get him to sign long term. That's what makes the Peavy and Rios deals potentially so good for the Sox.

If the Sox could get him signed long term then he would be worth giving up a nice package of young talent for. However, after trading for Peavy. how much and whom can they afford to give up?

I can't see giving up any of these players in the deal without hurting the team from another direction - Quentin, Danks, Floyd, Hudson, Beckham, Ramirez, Jordan Danks and Flowers.

The Padres won't be interested in Konerko, Buehrle, Peavy, Rios, A.J. or Jenks.

So, who does that leave ? I doubt that the Padres are going to trade him without getting back atleast one sure fire star talent back.

This and the long term contract situation make it seem very unlikely. Although I'd like to see Kenny try - maybe he can get a third team involved and get it done. If he could get it done without giving up any of the players on my list I would be extremely impressed.

munchman33
11-12-2009, 09:07 AM
The trade was horrendous. Nunez might be a decent bullpen piece, but the fact that we sent Kanekoa Texeira to NY along with Swisher is a slap in the face.

It was a salary dump. We essentially gave him to the Yankees. It wouldn't be a big deal except for the price it cost to get Swisher here in the first place.

Sargeant79
11-12-2009, 09:26 AM
We did overpay for Peavy, maybe the Pads will reuce the asking price a bit as they kind of owe us one.



In what parallel universe is Carter, Russel, Richard, and Poreda overpayment for a guy like Jake Peavy? It's a lot of money to take on, but I really don't see any of those guys as players who will be missed long term.

Sargeant79
11-12-2009, 09:27 AM
It was a salary dump. We essentially gave him to the Yankees. It wouldn't be a big deal except for the price it cost to get Swisher here in the first place.

100% correct. Money needed to be shed. If you're going to dump salary, might as well involve a player that would have been nothing more than a spare part for us.

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 12:07 PM
Gonzalez would be an ideal player for the Sox to add but only if the Sox can get him to sign long term. That's what makes the Peavy and Rios deals potentially so good for the Sox.

I am not sure about that. It would be a great benefit if we could sign him long term, but I think that with his bat in the line up and our "what should be great" starting staff, we stand a good chance of going deep into the playoffs for the 2 guaranteed years that he would be here.
Personally, even if Gonzales doesn't sign long term, I would sell most of the farm for a pretty good chance at another ring for the next 2 seasons. JMHO

NLaloosh
11-12-2009, 12:30 PM
I am not sure about that. It would be a great benefit if we could sign him long term, but I think that with his bat in the line up and our "what should be great" starting staff, we stand a good chance of going deep into the playoffs for the 2 guaranteed years that he would be here.
Personally, even if Gonzales doesn't sign long term, I would sell most of the farm for a pretty good chance at another ring for the next 2 seasons. JMHO

I wouldn't. Don't forget that we are competing against the Yankees and the Red Sox every year to get to a World Series.

JohnTucker0814
11-12-2009, 01:15 PM
I wouldn't. Don't forget that we are competing against the Yankees and the Red Sox every year to get to a World Series.

That is the exact reason why you sell the farm right now to compete! This may be our best starting rotation we've seen in a long long time! Capitalize on this staff, because the young guns may not be any good. If you keep the farm and they don't pan out then you never had a chance at a WS for 2 years!

Actually you could say that by getting these top notch guys via trade or FA, it BUILDS your farm system. They are TYPE A free agents that won't accept arbitration because they are looking for a 5 yr deal, not 1 yr deal. You then get an extra 1st round pick, that is how you build your system! =)

Zisk77
11-12-2009, 01:24 PM
I think it wouldn't be hard to sign him long term. We'd have the money we were paying Paulie coming off the books that could be reallocated to Gonzalez. Plus you would think Revenue would increase the next 2 years with us prolly being in the playoffs.

Question is does something like Flowers, Retherford, Shelby, and any minor league pitcher not named Hudson get it done?

Sargeant79
11-12-2009, 02:01 PM
I think it wouldn't be hard to sign him long term. We'd have the money we were paying Paulie coming off the books that could be reallocated to Gonzalez. Plus you would think Revenue would increase the next 2 years with us prolly being in the playoffs.

Question is does something like Flowers, Retherford, Shelby, and any minor league pitcher not named Hudson get it done?

My guess is that Hudson would have to be included for San Diego to even think about biting. Keep in mind that other teams like the Red Sox would be offering their own proposals, likely including some of their top prospects. We would have to do the same to be taken seriously.

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 02:01 PM
That is the exact reason why you sell the farm right now to compete! This may be our best starting rotation we've seen in a long long time! Capitalize on this staff, because the young guns may not be any good. If you keep the farm and they don't pan out then you never had a chance at a WS for 2 years! =)

Amen Brotha, Preach it! :bandance:

TheOldRoman
11-12-2009, 02:15 PM
Has it yet been revealed which Gonzalez the rumor is about?:duck:

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 02:22 PM
Has it yet been revealed which Gonzalez the rumor is about?:duck:

What? You mean this is not Adrian! Andy!........:o:......Nevermind.

oeo
11-12-2009, 02:25 PM
It was a salary dump. We essentially gave him to the Yankees. It wouldn't be a big deal except for the price it cost to get Swisher here in the first place.

Not to mention, it seems more and more is coming out of what a problem Swisher was.

TheOldRoman
11-12-2009, 02:31 PM
What? You mean this is not Adrian! Andy!........:o:......Nevermind.All I know is there is a rumor about a Gonzalez, I haven't yet confirmed which one. Possibly Luis? Back to the baggage claim for me.

Craig Grebeck
11-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Not to mention, it seems more and more is coming out of what a problem Swisher was.
As opposed to Jeff Marquez and Wilson Betemit, who have been/were wonderful for the clubhouse!

oeo
11-12-2009, 02:34 PM
As opposed to Jeff Marquez and Wilson Betemit, who have been/were wonderful for the clubhouse!

Sounds like they're better than Swisher.

gr8mexico
11-12-2009, 02:45 PM
All I know is there is a rumor about a Gonzalez, I haven't yet confirmed which one. Possibly Luis? Back to the baggage claim for me.
I Think it's Edgar Gonzalez. Adrian Gonzalez brother :D:
He can play SS, 2B, LF and CF. Just the way Kenny likes them

Craig Grebeck
11-12-2009, 02:47 PM
Sounds like they're better than Swisher.
If only they were better at baseball. Darn.

munchman33
11-12-2009, 02:49 PM
If only they were better at baseball. Darn.

The only difference between those two and Nick Swisher is that Nick doesn't realize how much he sucks.

Domeshot17
11-12-2009, 02:55 PM
Sounds like they're better than Swisher.

I am sure WSI could form a very tight gelled 25 man roster, it still wouldn't be better than a solid player with an attitude.

The Swisher moves are indefensible. Kenny bought way too high on a player and then sold on the rock bottom. He gave up 2 top 100 prospects and another of our top 10, got Swisher (who when we got him WSI raved over his GREAT AFFORDABLE CONTRACT) and then sold him and his TERRIBLE contract for 2 nothings and a reliever with some upside.

Also, before anyone spits out the generic what have Gio and DLS and Sweeney done line, keep in mind they could have been dealt elsewhere.

Point being, we paid more in terms of talent for Nick Swisher then we did for Jake Peavy. It was probably the biggest mistake in Kenny's career. Had we held on to those guys, they could have been dealt for a different hitter at a different time.

Think the Pirates jump on Gio-DLS-Sweeney back then for Jason Bay? Much better than what they got. Maybe those guys go for Gonzalez now.

It doesn't make Kenny a bad GM or anything, but it was a TERRIBLE move.

I also don't think it was entirely Nick's fault for things not working here. The guy came in very positive and upbeat. It was known him and Cabrera from day 1 were put off by some of the Vets who thought it was "their team". He was told to play out of position, bat out of position, and handcuffed on doing what made him successful. Now some of the stuff at the end was crap, but the guy was told be to a different player than he was, and when he couldn't be, he was benched. It just was NEVER a fit, a mistake from day 1.

Sargeant79
11-12-2009, 03:34 PM
I am sure WSI could form a very tight gelled 25 man roster, it still wouldn't be better than a solid player with an attitude.

The Swisher moves are indefensible. Kenny bought way too high on a player and then sold on the rock bottom. He gave up 2 top 100 prospects and another of our top 10, got Swisher (who when we got him WSI raved over his GREAT AFFORDABLE CONTRACT) and then sold him and his TERRIBLE contract for 2 nothings and a reliever with some upside.

Also, before anyone spits out the generic what have Gio and DLS and Sweeney done line, keep in mind they could have been dealt elsewhere.

Point being, we paid more in terms of talent for Nick Swisher then we did for Jake Peavy. It was probably the biggest mistake in Kenny's career. Had we held on to those guys, they could have been dealt for a different hitter at a different time.

Think the Pirates jump on Gio-DLS-Sweeney back then for Jason Bay? Much better than what they got. Maybe those guys go for Gonzalez now.

It doesn't make Kenny a bad GM or anything, but it was a TERRIBLE move.

I also don't think it was entirely Nick's fault for things not working here. The guy came in very positive and upbeat. It was known him and Cabrera from day 1 were put off by some of the Vets who thought it was "their team". He was told to play out of position, bat out of position, and handcuffed on doing what made him successful. Now some of the stuff at the end was crap, but the guy was told be to a different player than he was, and when he couldn't be, he was benched. It just was NEVER a fit, a mistake from day 1.

I agree with most of this post, although I think getting rid of Swisher when we did was the right move...Better to acknowledge a mistake and move on from it rather than trying to stick with it too long in the hopes that it turns around.

But regarding the bolded statement above... There were two drastically different economic climates in the winter we got Swisher and in the winter we shipped him off. In 2007-2008, his contract wasn't so bad. A year later, it was a problem. And it was a problem made worse by the fact that the Sox needed to trim payroll and we had a .219 hitter on the books for a good amount of money over the next few years.

I said this in another post several months back... The fact that Kenny Williams was able to find a team to take the entire contract in last winter's economy was amazing considering what Swisher hit for us in 2008. And the fact that anyone who might be a useful part (I'm hoping Nunez turns out to be so because Betemit and Marquez sure as hell didn't turn out to be useful) was sent back in return was just a bonus.

UChicagoHP
11-12-2009, 03:35 PM
This NEEDS to happen. Paulie has been a wonderful member of the team, but it's time for a true stud to take over at 1B.

Gammons Peter
11-12-2009, 03:56 PM
Jeff Marquez is one of the reasons we didnt make the playoffs. Kenny wouldnt sign a veteran (like Jon Garland) because Marquez was the "same pitcher".

JermaineDye05
11-12-2009, 04:18 PM
Jeff Marquez is one of the reasons we didnt make the playoffs. Kenny wouldnt sign a veteran (like Jon Garland) because Marquez was the "same pitcher".

Wrong.

Our offense was horrendous, as was our defense. That's why we didn't make it. Also, our bullpen fell apart in the second half.

spawn
11-12-2009, 04:20 PM
Wrong.

Our offense was horrendous, as was our defense. That's why we didn't make it. Also, our bullpen fell apart in the second half.
Thank you. Marquez not being on the roster is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the list of reasons the Sox didn't make the postseason.

Craig Grebeck
11-12-2009, 04:31 PM
Thank you. Marquez not being on the roster is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the list of reasons the Sox didn't make the postseason.
Yeah, I don't think that's what the poster was saying at all.

spawn
11-12-2009, 04:33 PM
Yeah, I don't think that's what the poster was saying at all.
I know what he was saying. I'm saying starting pitching was way down on the list of reasons the Sox didn't make the playoffs.

oeo
11-12-2009, 05:44 PM
If only they were better at baseball. Darn.

Honestly, the same could be said of Nick Swisher. If he was a bit better dealing him to the Yankees probably never happens. I don't like that we sold low a year after buying high, but it is what it is.

soxinem1
11-12-2009, 06:14 PM
Jeff Marquez is one of the reasons we didnt make the playoffs. Kenny wouldnt sign a veteran (like Jon Garland) because Marquez was the "same pitcher".

The starting pitching, minus Contreras, was really the only reason this team was even close to a .500 team.

Brian26
11-12-2009, 08:05 PM
Did you really just compare Jeff Marquez to Gordon Beckham??? Really, honestly?

You seriously deduced that I was comparing Beckham to Marquez?

And yes, Welcome to reality, Beckham was on the team last year, and they were terrible and finished a pathetic season. So anyone who said if Becks was on the team last year the sox were doomed was right. Wrong. The Sox didn't fail last year because of the hole at 3B. In fact, with Beckham on team for close to two months, the Sox tied for the division lead on the day of Buehrle's perfecto. The Sox didn't succeed this year due to their other shortcomings. There was no correlation, in hindsight, between Beckham's presence on the team and the team's final fate. It was an uniformed, ill-advised comment by Guillen.

Domeshot17
11-12-2009, 08:23 PM
You seriously deduced that I was comparing Beckham to Marquez?

Wrong. The Sox didn't fail last year because of the hole at 3B. In fact, with Beckham on team for close to two months, the Sox tied for the division lead on the day of Buehrle's perfecto. The Sox didn't succeed this year due to their other shortcomings. There was no correlation, in hindsight, between Beckham's presence on the team and the team's final fate. It was an uniformed, ill-advised comment by Guillen.

I think there was a direct link. This is it:

There were only 2 reasons to call up Beckham before the season (1) Team sucks (2) Injuries. If the team had been playing great and winning, if fields was hitting 260 and hitting 25 homers or more, Beckham would be in triple A. So yes, him being up was an indication the Sox were headed down.

Brian26
11-12-2009, 08:28 PM
I think there was a direct link. This is it:

There were only 2 reasons to call up Beckham before the season (1) Team sucks (2) Injuries. If the team had been playing great and winning, if fields was hitting 260 and hitting 25 homers or more, Beckham would be in triple A. So yes, him being up was an indication the Sox were headed down.

The reason to call Beckham up was because Fields sucked. The blackhole at third was ancillary to the team's overall performance at that time.

Domeshot17
11-12-2009, 09:33 PM
The reason to call Beckham up was because Fields sucked. The blackhole at third was ancillary to the team's overall performance at that time.

I guess I still Disagree. Yes, We had OTHER problems outside 3b, but Fields lack of Offensive and Defensive Growth was a big problem for us. Fields failing was a big blow to us this year.

SoxNation05
11-12-2009, 10:22 PM
The reason to call Beckham up was because Fields sucked. The blackhole at third was ancillary to the team's overall performance at that time.
Correct
I think there was a direct link. This is it:

There were only 2 reasons to call up Beckham before the season (1) Team sucks (2) Injuries. If the team had been playing great and winning, if fields was hitting 260 and hitting 25 homers or more, Beckham would be in triple A. So yes, him being up was an indication the Sox were headed down.
Incorrect. You claim one the two reasons to bring up Beckham were because they suck or because of injury. They were in contention when Beckham was brought up and nobody was injured? If you really believe te team was doomed because of Fields you are sadly mistaking.

Did we not make the playoffs in 2008 with horrible CF play? Aside from that CF is a much more important position than 3B.

DumpJerry
11-12-2009, 11:04 PM
I think there was a direct link. This is it:

There were only 2 reasons to call up Beckham before the season (1) Team sucks (2) Injuries. If the team had been playing great and winning, if fields was hitting 260 and hitting 25 homers or more, Beckham would be in triple A. So yes, him being up was an indication the Sox were headed down.
Survey says: Wrong.

The team failed because the Bullpen was overworked in the second half due to inconsistent pitching in the 5th spot after Richard was traded and Peavy was not yet ready along with Floyd hurting in the latter part of the season and unable to go deep in games. Overworked Bullpen=late inning meltdowns.

Domeshot17
11-12-2009, 11:06 PM
Survey says: Wrong.

The team failed because the Bullpen was overworked in the second half due to inconsistent pitching in the 5th spot after Richard was traded and Peavy was not yet ready along with Floyd hurting in the latter part of the season and unable to go deep in games. Overworked Bullpen=late inning meltdowns.

Now come on, that was a large, large factor, but our piss poor offense and defense was HUGE. I never said Beckham up is WHY we missed the playoffs, but I do firmly belive if we were a real contender last year he wouldnt have been up.

soxfandy
11-13-2009, 12:59 AM
I would trade whatever prospects it would take to get Gonzalez. Dotel and Dye getting type A status will help us get some talent back in the system and I would imagine paulie would draw some sort of status next year. All I'm trying to say is that you can replace prospects...they are just prospects. Guys like Gonzalez don't come around very often. He put up those numbers in that ballpark and on that offense. He is a gold glover. The only weakness I see is his numbers against lefties and that can still improve. I say go for it.

tm1119
11-13-2009, 01:41 AM
I would trade whatever prospects it would take to get Gonzalez. Dotel and Dye getting type A status will help us get some talent back in the system and I would imagine Paulie would draw some sort of status next year. All I'm trying to say is that you can replace prospects...they are just prospects. Guys like Gonzalez don't come around very often. He put up those numbers in that ballpark and on that offense. He is a gold glover. The only weakness I see is his numbers against lefties and that can still improve. I say go for it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but neither Dye nor Dotel (maybe Dotel) will be offered arbitration. If we were to offer either of them they would more than likely accept. And in the very very small chance that we do offer arbitration and they don't accept I highly doubt any team would give up draft picks to sign them.

I really don't see much truth to the rumor just because about the only plausible package we could offer for Gonzalez would Jordan Danks, Flowers, and Hudson. And that just isn't worth it to me.

TheOldRoman
11-13-2009, 09:51 AM
Now come on, that was a large, large factor, but our piss poor offense and defense was HUGE. I never said Beckham up is WHY we missed the playoffs, but I do firmly belive if we were a real contender last year he wouldnt have been up.Beckham was called up because Kenny thought the Sox could still win this season. Not accounting for the massive Walkerian slump the team was going to go into in August (like clockwork), there was every reason to think the Sox could stick with it until the end, given their position at the time.

The real reason they needed him was not because Fields was horrible, it was because Betemit was. If the Sox had a solid backup who could platoon with Fields, Gordon would have stayed in AA.

Sargeant79
11-13-2009, 10:01 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but neither Dye nor Dotel (maybe Dotel) will be offered arbitration. If we were to offer either of them they would more than likely accept. And in the very very small chance that we do offer arbitration and they don't accept I highly doubt any team would give up draft picks to sign them.

I really don't see much truth to the rumor just because about the only plausible package we could offer for Gonzalez would Jordan Danks, Flowers, and Hudson. And that just isn't worth it to me.

I think you're pretty much correct with all this, but IMHO, if you can get Gonzalez by only giving up 2 of those three you mentioned (preferably keeping Flowers), it would be worth it.

tm1119
11-13-2009, 12:33 PM
I think you're pretty much correct with all this, but IMHO, if you can get Gonzalez by only giving up 2 of those three you mentioned (preferably keeping Flowers), it would be worth it.

Flowers is the best prospect of those 3 though. And who else do we actually have? Viciedo and Jared Mitchel are the only other true prospects we really have. After that its some fringe prospects like Torres, Retherford, Morel, Ely, Gartnell, and a few RP's that no one really wants. Which is why I cant believe that pretty much any other AL team couldnt step in and offer a better package and take away Gonzalez.

Is KW looking for a way to acquire Gonzalez? Most likely. Will it happen? Most likely not.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 12:37 PM
People are really understating what it would cost to get Gonzalez. You would basically have to clean out your top prospect list. Not only is he a 40 homer .400 OBP Gold Glover, he gets paid nowhere near one for a couple of years. Its a double whammy. At least 3 of the Sox top 5 prospects, if not their top 3 would have to go as part of the package.

voodoochile
11-13-2009, 12:56 PM
People are really understating what it would cost to get Gonzalez. You would basically have to clean out your top prospect list. Not only is he a 40 homer .400 OBP Gold Glover, he gets paid nowhere near one for a couple of years. Its a double whammy. At least 3 of the Sox top 5 prospects, if not their top 3 would have to go as part of the package.

Hudson, Danks and Flowers? Okay...

DirtySox
11-13-2009, 12:56 PM
Flowers is the best prospect of those 3 though. And who else do we actually have? Viciedo and Jared Mitchel are the only other true prospects we really have. After that its some fringe prospects like Torres, Retherford, Morel, Ely, Gartnell, and a few RP's that no one really wants. Which is why I cant believe that pretty much any other AL team couldnt step in and offer a better package and take away Gonzalez.

Is KW looking for a way to acquire Gonzalez? Most likely. Will it happen? Most likely not.

Pretty much spot on. The White Sox system is still well below average and is sorely lacking any depth. The Padres want, and need pitching. We have one legit SP prospect in Hudson. That's it. There are so many more teams who could offer better packages than we could.

tm1119
11-13-2009, 01:26 PM
Hudson, Danks and Flowers? Okay...

Maybe, maybe not. Danks is very overrated here. Hes not nearly the prospect hes made out to be around here. And while Hudson has good potential hes not exactly ace material either. As some one else pointed out Gonzalez is a perennial all-star hitter with a gold glove that is still very cheap. And he was doing all of that in the worst hitters park in the MLB. Its going to take at least a couple of top 50 prospects to get him that we probably just dont have.

NLaloosh
11-13-2009, 01:43 PM
Kenny would probably need to move Konerko or Jenks and include the prospect/s as well.

Marqhead
11-13-2009, 01:48 PM
Kenny would probably need to move Konerko or Jenks and include the prospect/s as well.

The Padres are SHEDDING SALARY, why would they agree to take on those contracts?

Sargeant79
11-13-2009, 01:54 PM
The Padres are SHEDDING SALARY, why would they agree to take on those contracts?

I think NLaLoosh was suggesting that Kenny would have to move those two to a third team, and then flip the prospects acquired in return in a package for Gonzalez.

Marqhead
11-13-2009, 02:03 PM
I think NLaLoosh was suggesting that Kenny would have to move those two to a third team, and then flip the prospects acquired in return in a package for Gonzalez.

My mistake. Thanks.

DSpivack
11-13-2009, 02:17 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Danks is very overrated here. Hes not nearly the prospect hes made out to be around here. And while Hudson has good potential hes not exactly ace material either. As some one else pointed out Gonzalez is a perennial all-star hitter with a gold glove that is still very cheap. And he was doing all of that in the worst hitters park in the MLB. Its going to take at least a couple of top 50 prospects to get him that we probably just dont have.

Oh, San Diego would demand Danks in a package in return for Gonzalez, just not Jordan...

voodoochile
11-13-2009, 02:55 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Danks is very overrated here. Hes not nearly the prospect hes made out to be around here. And while Hudson has good potential hes not exactly ace material either. As some one else pointed out Gonzalez is a perennial all-star hitter with a gold glove that is still very cheap. And he was doing all of that in the worst hitters park in the MLB. Its going to take at least a couple of top 50 prospects to get him that we probably just dont have.

Hudson, Viciedo and Flowers - rather not give up both Viciedo and Flowers, but honestly this is a golden opportunity to put the Sox squarely in the thick of the pennant chase for the next two years at least.

oeo
11-13-2009, 03:08 PM
Oh, San Diego would demand Danks in a package in return for Gonzalez, just not Jordan...

Who else is San Diego including? And yes, I'm serious. Young, left-handed, has already shown success, and still has loads of potential.

DSpivack
11-13-2009, 03:12 PM
Who else is San Diego including? And yes, I'm serious. Young, left-handed, has already shown success, and still has loads of potential.

In terms of levels of talent, that's who I think San Diego would try and go after. I don't think we could get it done with just some minor leaguers.

oeo
11-13-2009, 03:16 PM
In terms of levels of talent, that's who I think San Diego would try and go after. I don't think we could get it done with just some minor leaguers.

And they better think about who else they're going to add on their side of the deal. Pitchers like John Danks don't come around that often. He's not some prospect with potential anymore, he has a bit of a track record and still has potential to get better at only 24. John Danks is someone who could have been demanded two years ago, not anymore.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 03:24 PM
Hudson, Danks and Flowers? Okay...
That's a start, but not nearly enough.

Balfanman
11-13-2009, 03:26 PM
Oh, San Diego would demand Danks in a package in return for Gonzalez, just not Jordan...

I don't believe that they would be that interested in John Danks. He is heading into his fourth full major league season and is about to get expensive. The Padres will not be in contention until at least 2012.

JermaineDye05
11-13-2009, 04:04 PM
That's a start, but not nearly enough.

It depends which Danks was being referred to.

voodoochile
11-13-2009, 04:18 PM
It depends which Danks was being referred to.

Jordan, if it means trading Hudson and one of the projected starters this year they should pass (maybe Freddie, but not one of the other 4). I like knowing the Sox will have 5 solid starters next year and don't want to see that change.

Frater Perdurabo
11-13-2009, 04:18 PM
Paulie to a West Coast team for prospects. Mix those prospects, with Flowers, Hudson and Viciedo, to build a package acceptable to the Padres for Gonzalez.

The lineup of LF/DH Pods, 2B Beckham, 1B Gonzalez, DH/LF Quentin, C AJ, CF Rios, 3B Teahen, SS Alexei, RF Danks, ought to score enough runs. It also would play sufficient defense to allow the excellent starting rotation to work deeper into games. And if the starters work deeper into games, it will reduce the number of innings and appearances the bullpen will have to pitch, thereby making the it more effective.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 04:23 PM
Paulie to a West Coast team for prospects. Mix those prospects, with Flowers, Hudson and Viciedo, to build a package acceptable to the Padres for Gonzalez.

The lineup of LF/DH Pods, 2B Beckham, 1B Gonzalez, DH/LF Quentin, C AJ, CF Rios, 3B Teahen, SS Alexei, RF Danks, ought to score enough runs. It also would play sufficient defense to allow the excellent starting rotation to work deeper into games. And if the starters work deeper into games, it will reduce the number of innings and appearances the bullpen will have to pitch, thereby making the it more effective.

A few years ago this may have worked, but I don't think teams are killing KW's cell phone battery trying to pick up a 35 year old Paulie making $12 million a year and want to give some good prospects in return. If they had, Paulie would be gone by now, I'm quite sure.

Frater Perdurabo
11-13-2009, 04:33 PM
A few years ago this may have worked, but I don't think teams are killing KW's cell phone battery trying to pick up a 35 year old Paulie making $12 million a year and want to give some good prospects in return.

Teams that think they may be one RH bat away from winning a division and competing in a weak NL in 2010 might give up two solid prospects for Paulie, especially the Dodgers (James Loney) and Giants (Ryan Garko).

SoxNation05
11-13-2009, 04:49 PM
Flowers is the best prospect of those 3 though. And who else do we actually have? Viciedo and Jared Mitchel are the only other true prospects we really have. After that its some fringe prospects like Torres, Retherford, Morel, Ely, Gartnell, and a few RP's that no one really wants. Which is why I cant believe that pretty much any other AL team couldnt step in and offer a better package and take away Gonzalez.

Is KW looking for a way to acquire Gonzalez? Most likely. Will it happen? Most likely not.
He is 27?

Tragg
11-14-2009, 10:02 AM
A few years ago this may have worked, but I don't think teams are killing KW's cell phone battery trying to pick up a 35 year old Paulie making $12 million a year and want to give some good prospects in return. If they had, Paulie would be gone by now, I'm quite sure.
they might if the Sox throw in $5 million. And it will be 2nd tier prospects, but 2nd tier prospects have trade value to help fill holes such as RF, and if we trade Konerko, 1B.

Ranger
11-14-2009, 05:08 PM
Left-handed power, and a 1B. We'd have to get rid of Paulie, unless we DH Gonzalez.

I'm also not crazy about giving up Hudson.

While I , too, would like for them to hold on to Hudson, if they were able to get Gonzalez, I think I'd have to say, "good luck in your journeys, Mr. Hudson."

As promising as Hudson is, he is still an unknown. Gonzalez is not. He can hit, he's an excellent fielder, and is still young. They wouldn't have to worry about signing him until after 2011, though he will likely make a great deal of cash then.

JermaineDye05
11-14-2009, 05:15 PM
While I , too, would like for them to hold on to Hudson, if they were able to get Gonzalez, I think I'd have to say, "good luck in your journeys, Mr. Hudson."

As promising as Hudson is, he is still an unknown. Gonzalez is not. He can hit, he's an excellent fielder, and is still young. They wouldn't have to worry about signing him until after 2011, though he will likely make a great deal of cash then.

Agreed. Not only would the Sox have a Cy Young candidate in their rotation, but they'd also have a bonafide MVP candidate in the lineup.

Now, I'm not saying that Beckham and/or Quentin couldn't be that guy. I'm sure either of them could be but both have really only proven themselves in 1 season. Gonzalez has been good for a while now. Keep in mind that he was playing in Petco. People expect Jake to give up more HR in USCF. If we add Adrian Gonzalez, I think that about evens it out because it's a pretty good guess that he'll hit for more power here in Chicago.

tm1119
11-14-2009, 08:06 PM
And they better think about who else they're going to add on their side of the deal. Pitchers like John Danks don't come around that often. He's not some prospect with potential anymore, he has a bit of a track record and still has potential to get better at only 24. John Danks is someone who could have been demanded two years ago, not anymore.

Come on man, seriously? You talk about Danks likes he a cy-young winner or something. Hes a good pitcher, but hes not even a #1. Hes a very solid young pitcher, but hes nothing special. There are plenty of pitchers like him. And Im saying this as some one who really likes Danks.
Gonzalez, on the other hand, has the ability to put up a .290/.400/.550 with 40 hr's line. And thats in the worst hitter stadium in the MLB, put that guy in a stadium like The Cell and it could be scary. John Danks, Hudson, and another lower level hitting prospect like Morel is a pretty fair offer for Gonzalez in my opinion.

oeo
11-14-2009, 08:23 PM
Come on man, seriously? You talk about Danks likes he a cy-young winner or something. Hes a good pitcher, but hes not even a #1. Hes a very solid young pitcher, but hes nothing special. There are plenty of pitchers like him. And Im saying this as some one who really likes Danks.
Gonzalez, on the other hand, has the ability to put up a .290/.400/.550 with 40 hr's line. And thats in the worst hitter stadium in the MLB, put that guy in a stadium like The Cell and it could be scary. John Danks, Hudson, and another lower level hitting prospect like Morel is a pretty fair offer for Gonzalez in my opinion.

There's plenty like him? Name them. Don't forget to take into account their age, the hand they throw with, and future growth. There are not a ton of very good left-handed starters, period, let alone young ones. You act like he's reached his peak. There's very few guys I would trade John Danks for, Gonzalez isn't one of them.

It's a matter of what is more valuable in MLB. A 27-year-old power hitting first baseman with a good glove or a left-handed starting pitcher under the age of 25, with two good seasons under his belt? Which would you rather have? Both would be nice to have, but good left-handed pitching isn't exactly growing on trees. We're lucky to have two of them in our rotation.

By the time Danks reaches 27, he may very well have a Cy Young.

DirtySox
11-14-2009, 08:29 PM
Come on man, seriously? You talk about Danks likes he a cy-young winner or something. Hes a good pitcher, but hes not even a #1. Hes a very solid young pitcher, but hes nothing special. There are plenty of pitchers like him. And Im saying this as some one who really likes Danks.
Gonzalez, on the other hand, has the ability to put up a .290/.400/.550 with 40 hr's line. And thats in the worst hitter stadium in the MLB, put that guy in a stadium like The Cell and it could be scary. John Danks, Hudson, and another lower level hitting prospect like Morel is a pretty fair offer for Gonzalez in my opinion.

You talk about Danks like he's reached his ceiling. He's far from it. He has ass-loads of potential and upside still. It's not that far-fetched to consider him being an ace in the making.

Zisk77
11-14-2009, 08:47 PM
You talk about Danks like he's reached his ceiling. He's far from it. He has ass-loads of potential and upside still. It's not that far-fetched to consider him being an ace in the making.

I think those are called hemorrhoids.

JermaineDye05
11-14-2009, 08:47 PM
You talk about Danks like he's reached his ceiling. He's far from it. He has ass-loads of potential and upside still. It's not that far-fetched to consider him being an ace in the making.

Agreed. I remember reading something on ESPN prior to this season comparing Danks and Greinke. The thing that stood out was something along the lines of "The big question is which one of these guys will win a Cy Young first?"

tm1119
11-14-2009, 09:12 PM
There's plenty like him? Name them. Don't forget to take into account their age, the hand they throw with, and future growth. There are not a ton of very good left-handed starters, period, let alone young ones. You act like he's reached his peak. There's very few guys I would trade John Danks for, Gonzalez isn't one of them.

It's a matter of what is more valuable in MLB. A 27-year-old power hitting first baseman with a good glove or a left-handed starting pitcher under the age of 25, with two good seasons under his belt? Which would you rather have? Both would be nice to have, but good left-handed pitching isn't exactly growing on trees. We're lucky to have two of them in our rotation.

By the time Danks reaches 27, he may very well have a Cy Young.

Happ, Lester, Kershaw, Lincecum, Anderson, Price, Matusz, Miller, Kazmir just to name the lefties. And the list would be at least double, but you dont want to include the righties.
And Im REALLY glad youre not running the White Sox if there are only a few guys you would trade Danks for. Hes good, I like him and Im glad we have him. But hes not a top pitcher in the league, and doesnt project to be one either. Not enough K's and too many fly balls. His stuff is only good, not great.
Im sure I'll be the bad guy here though because Im realistic.

Brian26
11-14-2009, 09:21 PM
Happ, Lester, Kershaw, Lincecum, Anderson, Price, Matusz, Miller, Kazmir just to name the lefties. And the list would be at least double, but you dont want to include the righties.
And Im REALLY glad youre not running the White Sox if there are only a few guys you would trade Danks for. Hes good, I like him and Im glad we have him. But hes not a top pitcher in the league, and doesnt project to be one either. Not enough K's and too many fly balls. His stuff is only good, not great.
Im sure I'll be the bad guy here though because Im realistic.

I like your post. I think you're being cautiously realistic. There were times this year when Danks showed signs of regressing. Its easy to be optimistic about young lefties with good stuff, but for every Buehrle there are ten Ross Baumgartens or Britt Burns. With that said, the Sox don't need Danks to be Buehrle yet, but hopefully he can put some decent years together as a #3 starter.

central44
11-14-2009, 09:29 PM
After watching Danks in Game 163, i'm convinced that his ceiling is as high as he wants it to be. Considering that he was what, 23 years old when he did that? That's a guy with enormous potential who can get it done in big games. Maybe he's not an ace...yet. But he's the kind of pitcher that you can win championships with.

tm1119
11-14-2009, 09:35 PM
I like your post. I think you're being cautiously realistic. There were times this year when Danks showed signs of regressing. Its easy to be optimistic about young lefties with good stuff, but for every Buehrle there are ten Ross Baumgartens or Britt Burns. With that said, the Sox don't need Danks to be Buehrle yet, but hopefully he can put some decent years together as a #3 starter.

Thats the thing though. Buehrle IS NOT a top pitcher. And thats something Sox fans need to realize. Hes been very good and consistent for us, and I love him for that, but hes not a top pitcher in the league. I actually think Buehrle is a very good comparison for Danks. He will be a good and very consistent pitcher for a long time, but he lacks the stuff to ever be anything better than good. So, would I trade a lefty that is going to consistently put up an ERA in the mid to late 3's for a very good bat like Gonzalez in his prime? Yes, without a doubt.

JermaineDye05
11-14-2009, 09:37 PM
Happ, Lester, Kershaw, Lincecum, Anderson, Price, Matusz, Miller, Kazmir just to name the lefties. And the list would be at least double, but you dont want to include the righties.
And Im REALLY glad youre not running the White Sox if there are only a few guys you would trade Danks for. Hes good, I like him and Im glad we have him. But hes not a top pitcher in the league, and doesnt project to be one either. Not enough K's and too many fly balls. His stuff is only good, not great.
Im sure I'll be the bad guy here though because Im realistic.

http://notinhd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tim-lincecum1.jpg

I think the picture says it all. :D:

Craig Grebeck
11-14-2009, 09:41 PM
Happ, Lester, Kershaw, Lincecum, Anderson, Price, Matusz, Miller, Kazmir just to name the lefties. And the list would be at least double, but you dont want to include the righties.
And Im REALLY glad youre not running the White Sox if there are only a few guys you would trade Danks for. Hes good, I like him and Im glad we have him. But hes not a top pitcher in the league, and doesnt project to be one either. Not enough K's and too many fly balls. His stuff is only good, not great.
Im sure I'll be the bad guy here though because Im realistic.
Surely you aren't comparing Danks to J.A. Happ, Brian Matusz, and (most puzzling of all!) Andrew Miller. This can't be.

tm1119
11-14-2009, 09:47 PM
Surely you aren't comparing Danks to J.A. Happ, Brian Matusz, and (most puzzling of all!) Andrew Miller. This can't be.

In terms of being young, left handed, and having high potential, yes they are similar. Obviously Danks has been much better thus far and most likely will continue to be. They were the easiest 3 to pick off that list, but it wouldnt be that huge of a surprise if any of them ended up being better than Danks in the future.

And yeah the Lincecum thing was stupid of me. Dont know what I was thinking.

Pablo_Honey
11-14-2009, 11:08 PM
Thats the thing though. Buehrle IS NOT a top pitcher. And thats something Sox fans need to realize. Hes been very good and consistent for us, and I love him for that, but hes not a top pitcher in the league. I actually think Buehrle is a very good comparison for Danks. He will be a good and very consistent pitcher for a long time, but he lacks the stuff to ever be anything better than good. So, would I trade a lefty that is going to consistently put up an ERA in the mid to late 3's for a very good bat like Gonzalez in his prime? Yes, without a doubt.

If all it takes is Danks plus a few decent prospects (so no Flowers or Hudson) then Kenny should definitely consider it. However, I think Danks still has rooms to grow. He's only 25 afterall. I know he regressed a lot in 2009, but starting pitching is always an expensive commodity to have. Personally, I'd rather see Floyd traded but Padres would not want him. Another thing to note is that we would basically be trading for Gonzalez to play here for 2 seasons while we could easily have Danks secured for a longer duration. Kenny could have more flexibility with payroll by the time for extension but I think Gonzalez would be looking for bigger money that Kenny would ever be willing to pay up. If he walks, then we don't have neither an elite bat or a good starting pitcher.

Taliesinrk
11-14-2009, 11:34 PM
Sorry for being out of the loop, but what has been the latest news/rumors on this situation? Is this all people just hoping/speculating, or have their been any legs to this?

jamokes
11-15-2009, 12:15 AM
Please don't even start listening to ESPN's Harry and his rumors. After all.....he is a cub fan.

oeo
11-15-2009, 12:24 AM
Happ, Lester, Kershaw, Lincecum, Anderson, Price, Matusz, Miller, Kazmir just to name the lefties. And the list would be at least double, but you dont want to include the righties.

That's plenty? Hm...I guess we have different definitions. Lincecum is a righty and Happ is nearly 3 years older than Danks, BTW.

And Im REALLY glad youre not running the White Sox if there are only a few guys you would trade Danks for. Hes good, I like him and Im glad we have him. But hes not a top pitcher in the league, and doesnt project to be one either. Not enough K's and too many fly balls. His stuff is only good, not great.
Im sure I'll be the bad guy here though because Im realistic.

I feel the same about you. Apparently Danks has no room for improvement. You will be singing a different tune in a couple years, IMO.

What makes your prediction realistic? Because it's not bold?

LoveYourSuit
11-15-2009, 12:34 AM
Not giving up on Danks just yet but I expected a bit more from him this year. At the end of last year I for sure had him on my list to becoming one of the top 5 lefties in the game. I am having my doubts that he will be this great. He will be good, but perhaps that "greatness" label will not happen.

I honestly thought he has the stuff to be the next Johan in the AL.

tm1119
11-15-2009, 12:50 AM
That's plenty? Hm...I guess we have different definitions. Lincecum is a righty and Happ is nearly 3 years older than Danks, BTW.



I feel the same about you. Apparently Danks has no room for improvement. You will be singing a different tune in a couple years, IMO.

What makes your prediction realistic? Because it's not bold?

Im not saying that he cant improve, but improving on a 4.06 ERA over 534 IP still doesnt make him a stud either.
And I'm realistic because I watch Danks pitch and see what is there. There is no dominant out pitch there to dominant batters like you think he can. His fastball isnt overpowering, and his breaking stuff is only pretty good. Not enough swings and misses, and out of the balls that do get put in play way too many are fly balls. I really dont know why you are acting like he is 18 or something either. 25 with 3 years of experience for a MLB pitcher really isnt that young. Hell, 30 is considered old nowadays.
Basically, Danks needs to develop his slider/curve into an out pitch, and his command also needs a lot of work. Could he do both of these and turn into a stud? Sure, Im not saying he cant, but its also not a given by any means.

Again, I feel like the bad guy here. Sucks too because I actually really do like Danks and wouldnt want to see him go. I said trading him for Gonzalez would be fair in terms of talent, never said it was a trade I would do.

Zisk77
11-15-2009, 01:28 AM
Im not saying that he cant improve, but improving on a 4.06 ERA over 534 IP still doesnt make him a stud either.
And I'm realistic because I watch Danks pitch and see what is there. There is no dominant out pitch there to dominant batters like you think he can. His fastball isnt overpowering, and his breaking stuff is only pretty good. Not enough swings and misses, and out of the balls that do get put in play way too many are fly balls. I really dont know why you are acting like he is 18 or something either. 25 with 3 years of experience for a MLB pitcher really isnt that young. Hell, 30 is considered old nowadays.
Basically, Danks needs to develop his slider/curve into an out pitch, and his command also needs a lot of work. Could he do both of these and turn into a stud? Sure, Im not saying he cant, but its also not a given by any means.

Again, I feel like the bad guy here. Sucks too because I actually really do like Danks and wouldnt want to see him go. I said trading him for Gonzalez would be fair in terms of talent, never said it was a trade I would do.

Really, many AL batters said his change-up was santana-esque.

DSpivack
11-15-2009, 01:40 AM
Hah, I feel culpable in where this thread has turned. I brought up John Danks only because I thought that the proposals of Hudson/Flowers/Jordan Danks were far less than what San Diego would want in return for Adrian Gonzalez. :redface:

tm1119
11-15-2009, 01:45 AM
Really, many AL batters said his change-up was santana-esque.

Is that why Johan annually K's almost 100 more batters than Danks did last year? Please, Danks dreams of having a change-up close to Johan's.

JermaineDye05
11-15-2009, 01:56 AM
Is that why Johan annually K's almost 100 more batters than Danks did last year? Please, Danks dreams of having a change-up close to Johan's.

He doesn't have to wish. Watch the video. His changeup is pretty close to Johan's. John's problem isn't that his pitches aren't good enough, it's his location. He gets wild with his fastball occaisonally and he has a tendency to leave the changeup up in the zone.

People are accurate when they say John's changeup is comparable to Santana's. The reason he doesn't get as many strikeouts, yet at least, is because he doesn't have near the control.

oeo
11-15-2009, 02:27 AM
Im not saying that he cant improve, but improving on a 4.06 ERA over 534 IP still doesnt make him a stud either.
And I'm realistic because I watch Danks pitch and see what is there. There is no dominant out pitch there to dominant batters like you think he can. His fastball isnt overpowering, and his breaking stuff is only pretty good. Not enough swings and misses, and out of the balls that do get put in play way too many are fly balls. I really dont know why you are acting like he is 18 or something either. 25 with 3 years of experience for a MLB pitcher really isnt that young. Hell, 30 is considered old nowadays.
Basically, Danks needs to develop his slider/curve into an out pitch, and his command also needs a lot of work. Could he do both of these and turn into a stud? Sure, Im not saying he cant, but its also not a given by any means.

Again, I feel like the bad guy here. Sucks too because I actually really do like Danks and wouldnt want to see him go. I said trading him for Gonzalez would be fair in terms of talent, never said it was a trade I would do.

You're wrong on many accounts. Danks has a great change, he just tends to leave it up sometimes and, like clockwork, it gets hammered. 25 years old with 3 years experience isn't young? Most pitchers do not enter their prime until their late 20's. In what world is 30 considered old now? I've yet to hear that. Buehrle is old? Doc Halladay is old? Jamie Moyer, he's old. Danks has the stuff and intangibles to be very, very good.

Domeshot17
11-15-2009, 02:43 AM
Next year will be very telling for Danks. His Change up is very good. Truth be told, we are homers to think its as good as Johan's. It isn't. No ones is. But its very good. Saying something foolish like "Danks changeup is just as good as Johan's except for the control", well that is part of why Santana is so good, he controls it.

Danks has to learn to control his pitches. He beats himself so often. But he has to make the step next year from a middle rotation starter to a front of rotation starter. In terms of potential, he has more than anyone not named Peavy on our team. He won't ever win a Cy Young, but he could be an All Star. He is going to get a ton of favorable matchups next year as he will probably be our 4th starter (think Garland 2005). But its time to take the next step. 4th year in the League, he isn't a kid anymore. He isn't old, but its time to see a big stride taken. We have seen plenty of flashes, but its time to take 1 more.

I am a huge Danks supporter, hes easily my favorite player on the Sox. I think he is going to do it.

But I also won't kid myself and compare him to Johan. It would be like comparing Adam Dunn to Babe Ruth because of his tremendous power. Its just, a reach.

But, like I said, if he can put it together hes the number 2 on this team. If the Sox front office can actually find a way to put any kind of an offense together, it could be a fun year. In terms of sheer talent, Buehrle is the fourth best starter on our team. Now obviously Buehrle has some intangiables that put him ahead of Floyd and Danks, but in terms of just pure stuff, Burls is our 4. Thats exciting. We have a top 10 pitcher in Peavy, another top 30 or 40 in Buehrle, and 2 more blossoming kids, we could have a top 3-4 rotation next year.

That said I wouldn't break it up for Adrian. I love his bat, he is amazing, but if you can go get an Adam Dunn for half the price, I would. Breaking up our rotation for Gonzalez is a wash. We need to add to the team. We need someone who can produce big time runs in the middle too. Gonzalez is a perfect fit, but it has to be a good price.

oeo
11-15-2009, 02:56 AM
Next year will be very telling for Danks. His Change up is very good. Truth be told, we are homers to think its as good as Johan's. It isn't. No ones is. But its very good. Saying something foolish like "Danks changeup is just as good as Johan's except for the control", well that is part of why Santana is so good, he controls it.

No one here said it, Aubrey Huff did.

JermaineDye05
11-15-2009, 03:03 AM
that is part of why Santana is so good, he controls it.



Agree 100%

Next year will be very telling for Danks. His Change up is very good. Truth be told, we are homers to think its as good as Johan's. It isn't. No ones is. But its very good. Saying something foolish like "Danks changeup is just as good as Johan's except for the control",



No, Danks changeup isn't "just as good" as Johan's but it's certainly comparable. Johan has the best changeup in the game bar none. However, Danks does have a very good one in the making.

Watch these videos of Danks and Johan and you can see the similarities in their changeup, most notably in the swings and misses :D:.

Santana: link (http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5822573) the one to Ian Stewart is absolutely filthy

Danks: link
(http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200905094496769&c_id=cws)

Craig Grebeck
11-15-2009, 03:41 AM
In terms of being young, left handed, and having high potential, yes they are similar. Obviously Danks has been much better thus far and most likely will continue to be. They were the easiest 3 to pick off that list, but it wouldnt be that huge of a surprise if any of them ended up being better than Danks in the future.

And yeah the Lincecum thing was stupid of me. Dont know what I was thinking.
If Andrew Miller is better than Danks, I'll eat my hat.

tm1119
11-15-2009, 11:37 AM
Agree 100%



No, Danks changeup isn't "just as good" as Johan's but it's certainly comparable. Johan has the best changeup in the game bar none. However, Danks does have a very good one in the making.

Watch these videos of Danks and Johan and you can see the similarities in their changeup, most notably in the swings and misses :D:.

Santana: link (http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5822573) the one to Ian Stewart is absolutely filthy

Danks: link
(http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200905094496769&c_id=cws)

Even after watching those links the 2 change-ups arent even close. Johan's change-up may very well be the single most dominant pitch of the past decade. Yes, Danks has a good change-up but its not close to Johan's and still has a long way to go before it is.

PalehosePlanet
11-15-2009, 12:54 PM
Happ, Lester, Kershaw, Lincecum, Anderson, Price, Matusz, Miller, Kazmir just to name the lefties. And the list would be at least double, but you dont want to include the righties.
And Im REALLY glad youre not running the White Sox if there are only a few guys you would trade Danks for. Hes good, I like him and Im glad we have him. But hes not a top pitcher in the league, and doesnt project to be one either. Not enough K's and too many fly balls. His stuff is only good, not great.
Im sure I'll be the bad guy here though because Im realistic.

This is funny. You say there are PLENTY of guys better, then name only one in terms of talent and results (Lester) and two in terms of talent (Price and Kershaw.)

That's three young lefties out of 30 teams. No matter how you look at it, that is a very, very small number.

SoxNation05
11-15-2009, 01:24 PM
Even after watching those links the 2 change-ups arent even close. Johan's change-up may very well be the single most dominant pitch of the past decade. Yes, Danks has a good change-up but its not close to Johan's and still has a long way to go before it is.
There's this guy, on the Yankees, his name is Mariano Rivera and he throws this cutter....

JermaineDye05
11-15-2009, 02:11 PM
There's this guy, on the Yankees, his name is Mariano Rivera and he throws this cutter....

Yeah that is the most dominant pitch. In terms of starters though, I have to agree with tm.

Taliesinrk
11-15-2009, 02:23 PM
Sorry for being out of the loop, but what has been the latest news/rumors on this situation? Is this all people just hoping/speculating, or have their been any legs to this?

I'll take it by the responses (or lack thereof) that this is all just conjecture at this point.

DirtySox
11-16-2009, 12:42 PM
Most likely garbage, but lets stir the pot shall we?

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/soxnet/2009/11/report-sox-pads-angels-talking-three-way-deal-involving-konerko-gonzalez-and-prospects.html

Marqhead
11-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Most likely garbage, but lets stir the pot shall we?

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/soxnet/2009/11/report-sox-pads-angels-talking-three-way-deal-involving-konerko-gonzalez-and-prospects.html

Yeah I don't really know what the Angels would want with Konerko at this point. I know they are most likely getting rid of Guererro at DH, but they already have an excellent 1B in Morales.

DirtySox
11-16-2009, 12:47 PM
Yeah I don't really know what the Angels would want with Konerko at this point. I know they are most likely getting rid of Guererro at DH, but they already have an excellent 1B in Morales.

Exactly why it doesn't make much sense.

Chisoxfn
11-16-2009, 12:52 PM
Exactly why it doesn't make much sense.

As the author of the story, I can tell you the Angels are high on Konerko. They have been for some time. Whether they ultimately want him at 1B or DH, I don't know, but I do know what I've heard about the Sox having preliminary discussions with the two teams with the talks being surrounded on those names.

No other info and my guess is 1-5% of all deals which go into preliminary talks ever get done.

In no way, shape or form, am I reporting this as a done deal or even a close deal, just that prelim discussions have been made.

PalehosePlanet
11-16-2009, 12:56 PM
Yeah I don't really know what the Angels would want with Konerko at this point. I know they are most likely getting rid of Guererro at DH, but they already have an excellent 1B in Morales.

You answered your own question; either Konerko or Morales would become the primary DH.

Marqhead
11-16-2009, 01:13 PM
You answered your own question; either Konerko or Morales would become the primary DH.

I know they are willing to spend money, but I would think they could get better production than Konerko for 12 million and they already have a backlog of outfielders which could set up a platoon at DH.

I definitely see what you are saying, but these Konerko to the Angels rumors have been floating around for several years now, not that I wouldn't be happy with this deal, I just don't buy it.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 01:18 PM
I'm sure the Angels are dying to take on an adequate first baseman that makes far too much money.

PalehosePlanet
11-16-2009, 01:23 PM
I know they are willing to spend money, but I would think they could get better production than Konerko for 12 million and they already have a backlog of outfielders which could set up a platoon at DH.

I definitely see what you are saying, but these Konerko to the Angels rumors have been floating around for several years now, not that I wouldn't be happy with this deal, I just don't buy it.

I agree, I don't buy it either; we've been hearing it for 5 years. I was just making the point that they definiltely could use him.

With Guerrero gone, and the OF consisting of Abreu, Hunter, & Rivera, the DH duties would come down to Napoli or a Napoli and Matthews jr. platoon. The Angels soured on each of these guys last year; Napoli because he faded badly down the stretch and Matthews because he was bad all year.

Sargeant79
11-16-2009, 01:23 PM
I'm sure the Angels are dying to take on an adequate first baseman that makes far too much money.

I could see us sending cash back as well. Gonzalez has a really cheap contract. Even if we send along 3-4 million, we'd still have a net costs savings on the salary by swapping Konerko for Gonzalez.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 01:26 PM
Also, the Angels have a better system with far more depth (especially up the middle) -- part of why I don't buy this is that the Angels could easily destroy whatever package we put together. Why wouldn't they just acquire Gonzalez instead of settling for mediocrity and facilitating the betterment of a fellow AL ballclub?

tm1119
11-16-2009, 01:29 PM
I know they are willing to spend money, but I would think they could get better production than Konerko for 12 million and they already have a backlog of outfielders which could set up a platoon at DH.

I definitely see what you are saying, but these Konerko to the Angels rumors have been floating around for several years now, not that I wouldn't be happy with this deal, I just don't buy it.

Who exactly is the backlog of OF's that the Angels? They have- LF- Rivera, CF- Hunter, and RF- Abreu. And then of course they have the great Gary Matthews, cant forget him. The Angels are definitely going to add a bat some how, they have to. Whether or not PK is likely, I have no idea. If they can give up a few prospects, and get us to eat some of PK's contract(since there is a pretty big difference in $ between PK and Gonzalez) then it is plausible.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 01:30 PM
Who exactly is the backlog of OF's that the Angels? They have- LF- Rivera, CF- Hunter, and RF- Abreu. And then of course they have the great Gary Matthews, cant forget him. The Angels are definitely going to add a bat some how, they have to. Whether or not PK is likely, I have no idea. If they can give up a few prospects, and get us to eat some of PK's contract(since there is a pretty big difference is $ between PK and Gonzalez) then it is plausible.
No, it really isn't. If the Angels are part of a deal that involves Adrian Gonzalez, they'll be getting him -- not Paul Konerko.

PalehosePlanet
11-16-2009, 01:36 PM
Also, the Angels have a better system with far more depth (especially up the middle) -- part of why I don't buy this is that the Angels could easily destroy whatever package we put together. Why wouldn't they just acquire Gonzalez instead of settling for mediocrity and facilitating the betterment of a fellow AL ballclub?

Because it would cost more prospects to land Gonzalez and The Angels don't deal prospects. Bill Stoneman never dealt prospects for veterans and thus far Reagins is the same way. In order to get Konerko it would probably cost them one or two prospects (Brandon Wood?), while Gonzalez would cost three or four. (We would obviously have to make up the difference prospect wise.)

In that respect Konerko is way cheaper. But again, having said all that, I seriuosly doubt this ever happens.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 01:40 PM
Because it would cost more prospects to land Gonzalez and The Angels don't deal prospects. Bill Stoneman never dealt prospects for veterans and thus far Reagins is the same way. In order to get Konerko it would probably cost them one or two prospects (Brandon Wood?), while Gonzalez would cost three or four. (We would obviously have to make up the difference prospect wise.)

In that respect Konerko is way cheaper. But again, having said all that, I seriuosly doubt this ever happens.
But that raises another question: why not just deal with the Sox and get Konerko? Why help another team get way, way better?

cards press box
11-16-2009, 01:41 PM
No, it really isn't. If the Angels are part of a deal that involves Adrian Gonzalez, they'll be getting him -- not Paul Konerko.

I beg to differ. Not enough information has been released to gauge the plausibility of this rumor. The report does not say which prospects from the Angels or the White Sox may be involved; without that information, it is impossible to judge whether this rumored deal is possible or not. Yes, the Angels have a deep farm system. But, for all anyone knows, the Angels may have other deals cooking which involve their prospects.

The Angels have long been interested in Paul Konerko and the White Sox have long been interested in Adrian Gonzalez. A story that these teams and San Diego are speaking doesn't surprise me at all.

GAsoxfan
11-16-2009, 01:42 PM
But he has to make the step next year from a middle rotation starter to a front of rotation starter.

Danks has finished 5th and 10th in ERA in the AL the past two years. IMO, those are front of the rotation starter numbers. He may not be at the front of the Sox rotation, but he would be at the front of a lot of rotations.

Chisoxfn
11-16-2009, 01:44 PM
I agree, I don't buy it either; we've been hearing it for 5 years. I was just making the point that they definiltely could use him.

With Guerrero gone, and the OF consisting of Abreu, Hunter, & Rivera, the DH duties would come down to Napoli or a Napoli and Matthews jr. platoon. The Angels soured on each of these guys last year; Napoli because he faded badly down the stretch and Matthews because he was bad all year.
For those of you that don't know, Matthews will not be back with the Angels next year. Yes, he's still under-contract, but the Angels and Matthews have already informed each other that they have no interest in each other.

He will most likely get released in the coming weeks if the Angels can't trade him and save some money.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 01:44 PM
I beg to differ. Not enough information has been released to gauge the plausibility of this rumor. The report does not say which prospects from the Angels or the White Sox may be involved; without that information, it is impossible to judge whether this rumored deal is possible or not. Yes, the Angels have a deep farm system. But, for all anyone knows, the Angels may have other deals cooking which involve their prospects.

The Angels have long been interested in Paul Konerko and the White Sox have long been interested in Adrian Gonzalez. A story that these teams and San Diego are speaking doesn't surprise me at all.
A spade is a spade. A stupid rumor is a stupid rumor.

Marqhead
11-16-2009, 01:44 PM
Who exactly is the backlog of OF's that the Angels? They have- LF- Rivera, CF- Hunter, and RF- Abreu. And then of course they have the great Gary Matthews, cant forget him. The Angels are definitely going to add a bat some how, they have to. Whether or not PK is likely, I have no idea. If they can give up a few prospects, and get us to eat some of PK's contract(since there is a pretty big difference in $ between PK and Gonzalez) then it is plausible.

Despite how horrible he is, I have to think that Matthews and his 10 million dollars are going to get some ABs just for the simple fact that he's making 10 million.

It makes more sense in my mind for the Angels to find their DH in FA than to pay 12 million for an aging veteran who is on the tail end of his career.

Marqhead
11-16-2009, 01:46 PM
For those of you that don't know, Matthews will not be back with the Angels next year. Yes, he's still under-contract, but the Angels and Matthews have already informed each other that they have no interest in each other.

He will most likely get released in the coming weeks if the Angels can't trade him and save some money.

What is the source on this?

EDIT: I've found Matthew's comments on this issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Angels are going to bow to his will, especially if they can't find a trade partner.

PalehosePlanet
11-16-2009, 01:47 PM
But that raises another question: why not just deal with the Sox and get Konerko? Why help another team get way, way better?

Good point. But maybe The Angels don't have a 1B they are willing to offer back to us?

tm1119
11-16-2009, 01:49 PM
No, it really isn't. If the Angels are part of a deal that involves Adrian Gonzalez, they'll be getting him -- not Paul Konerko.

Yeah, that does make sense and I dont doubt that. The only thing I can think of is that they dont want to give up all of the prospects to get Gonzalez. Figgins is a FA and if they dont bring him back that makes Brandon Wood their starter and virtually untradeable. After a quick glance at the rest of their prospects they have 4 or 5 SP's in their top 10(depends on which site you look at). If they only have to give up 2 of those to get PK and get around 4 mil from us, rather than selling their farm to get Gonzalez it could possibly be worth it for them.
A package of 2 SP prospects from LAA, Hudson, and Jordan Danks for Gonzalez could perhaps get it done.

Of course thats all speculation and hope from me and most likely wont happen.

dickallen15
11-16-2009, 01:53 PM
I read today that the Angels are going to be going after Holliday. That wouldn't leave room for Paulie. I'm a big fan of Paulie, but if the Angels want him and the Sox can get out of the $12 million they owe him, they should let him go even if Gonzalez isn't part of the deal.

Zisk77
11-16-2009, 01:54 PM
Also, the Angels have a better system with far more depth (especially up the middle) -- part of why I don't buy this is that the Angels could easily destroy whatever package we put together. Why wouldn't they just acquire Gonzalez instead of settling for mediocrity and facilitating the betterment of a fellow AL ballclub?

Not that I think its likely to happen but:

I doubt either Morales or Gonzalez will be willing to DH.

The Angels may not like any of the FA DHs

The Angels have always liked Konerko

They would only be tied to Paulie for 1 year and maybe there will be a fa DH they covet next year.

Not saying that the above is whats happening but its a possible explanation. I know I wouldnt do it if I was LA. But of KW can get Gonzalez and not give up Hudson they aught to build him a staute...and get rid of Paulies contract to boot!

PalehosePlanet
11-16-2009, 02:01 PM
I read today that the Angels are going to be going after Holliday. That wouldn't leave room for Paulie. I'm a big fan of Paulie, but if the Angels want him and the Sox can get out of the $12 million they owe him, they should let him go even if Gonzalez isn't part of the deal.

Do you realize that we would then be in need an OF, a DH AND a 1B?

dickallen15
11-16-2009, 02:03 PM
Do you realize that we would then be in need an OF, a DH AND a 1B?
Yes but with the extra cash you can fill that rather easily.

oeo
11-16-2009, 02:25 PM
Also, the Angels have a better system with far more depth (especially up the middle) -- part of why I don't buy this is that the Angels could easily destroy whatever package we put together. Why wouldn't they just acquire Gonzalez instead of settling for mediocrity and facilitating the betterment of a fellow AL ballclub?

Not that I think it will happen because a)it highly favors the Sox and b)three way deals rarely happen...one of the three teams has to get screwed over in order for everyone to agree. The only way that current deal works is if we're throwing in some cash to go the Angels way, as well, and the Sox do not give away money, EVER.

However, the reasoning, 'why don't the Angels just go after Gonzalez' makes little sense. They may have the players to go out and get him, that does not mean they want to do it. Konerko may be due $12 million, but he's also a free agent at the end of the year and as long as he doesn't suck it up in 2010, could be a Type A free agent.

canOcorn
11-16-2009, 02:41 PM
Also, the Angels have a better system with far more depth (especially up the middle) -- part of why I don't buy this is that the Angels could easily destroy whatever package we put together. Why wouldn't they just acquire Gonzalez instead of settling for mediocrity and facilitating the betterment of a fellow AL ballclub?

The Angels system may have more depth, but they certainly "cannot destroy whatever package we would put together". Their top 3 is who? Conger, Reckling and Bourjos? They have some higher upside guys (Trout) in the lower levels, but they're years away.

I doubt this trade will ever happen, but it won't fail to happen because the Angels can put together a far superior package than the White Sox.

HomeFish
11-16-2009, 02:45 PM
If history is any indication, a 34-year old Adrian Gonzalez will be traded to the White Sox one day. KW always gets his guy.

Sockinchisox
11-16-2009, 03:24 PM
Doesn't matter, by reporting this it effectively ended any chance of the Sox getting Gonzalez.

tm1119
11-16-2009, 04:09 PM
Not that I think it will happen because a)it highly favors the Sox and b)three way deals rarely happen...one of the three teams has to get screwed over in order for everyone to agree. The only way that current deal works is if we're throwing in some cash to go the Angels way, as well, and the Sox do not give away money, EVER.

However, the reasoning, 'why don't the Angels just go after Gonzalez' makes little sense. They may have the players to go out and get him, that does not mean they want to do it. Konerko may be due $12 million, but he's also a free agent at the end of the year and as long as he doesn't suck it up in 2010, could be a Type A free agent.

I agree with all of this.
The other thing that we have to look at is how much better is PK going to be at DH than Vlad? Is it going to be worth it for the Angels to trade prospects for a DH like PK when they could bring back Vlad for nothing and less money than PK is going to make. That to me is the biggest question mark, and PK's marginal stats this season certainly dont help it.

getonbckthr
11-16-2009, 04:21 PM
Do I believe this will happen? No highly highly unlikely. However lets have some fun here. How much is a Scott Podsednik contract gonna be? What if the deal breaks down as such:

Sox Get: Gonzalez and Matthews
Angels Get: Konerko and Kouzmanoff or Chase Headley
PAdres get: Flowers, Danks, Hudson from the Sox and Wood from Anaheim.

No cash going anywhere. Sox don't resign Podsednik. Angels don't resign Figgins and use either Headley or Kouzmanoff at 3B. San Diego gets a solid haul for Gonzalez.

Gammons Peter
11-16-2009, 04:28 PM
chicagonow?, blogger?, sources?...did somebody overhear Kenny at the airport

Zisk77
11-16-2009, 04:55 PM
Not that I think it will happen because a)it highly favors the Sox and b)three way deals rarely happen...one of the three teams has to get screwed over in order for everyone to agree. The only way that current deal works is if we're throwing in some cash to go the Angels way, as well, and the Sox do not give away money, EVER.

However, the reasoning, 'why don't the Angels just go after Gonzalez' makes little sense. They may have the players to go out and get him, that does not mean they want to do it. Konerko may be due $12 million, but he's also a free agent at the end of the year and as long as he doesn't suck it up in 2010, could be a Type A free agent.


Sox sent money to the dodgers with Thome. If the sox can find a taker for Linebrink I'm sure the sox will eat part of the salary.

getonbckthr
11-16-2009, 05:01 PM
Sox sent money to the dodgers with Thome. If the sox can find a taker for Linebrink I'm sure the sox will eat part of the salary.
As much as I dislike Bradley I would be ok with a Linebrink for Bradley swap if the Cubs paid the remaining mone owed to Bradley.

oeo
11-16-2009, 05:09 PM
Sox sent money to the dodgers with Thome. If the sox can find a taker for Linebrink I'm sure the sox will eat part of the salary.

I forgot about Thome, but that was as a favor to him and was only for a month.

I think the Sox would hope for a rebound before they would give anyone any money to take Linebrink on. Remember, they waited until halfway through MacDougal's final year before finally eating his contract. That's moot anyway, considering Linebrink has a full no trade clause.

DumpJerry
11-16-2009, 05:32 PM
As much as I dislike Bradley I would be ok with a Linebrink for Bradley swap if the Cubs paid the remaining mone owed to Bradley.
I wouldn't be ok with Bradley in a Sox uni under any circumstances.

Nellie_Fox
11-16-2009, 05:35 PM
I wouldn't be ok with Bradley in a Sox uni under any circumstances.Me neither.

russ99
11-16-2009, 06:56 PM
I wouldn't be ok with Bradley in a Sox uni under any circumstances.

This from a fanbase that welcomed Carl "The Truth" Everett and Albert "Joey" Belle with open arms for a few seasons? For shame. This club has always welcomed those who are "different" than regular boring players...

I'm not a fan of Mr Bradley at all and I think he needs to get his head straight before playing baseball again, but I wouldn't close the door on any player that can perform at his (pre-Cubs) level.

Maybe I'd think about it if the Cubs ate 75% of his salary and also would take on Linebrink... :D:

oeo
11-16-2009, 06:59 PM
This from a fanbase that welcomed Carl "The Truth" Everett with open arms for a few seasons? For shame. This club has always welcomed those who are "different" than regular boring players...

I'm not a fan of Mr Bradley at all and I think he needs to get his head straight before playing baseball again, but I wouldn't close the door on any player that can perform at his (pre-Cubs) level.

Maybe I'd think about it if the Cubs ate 75% of his salary and also would take on Linebrink... :D:

Carl Everett was one of the biggest leaders on this team. He had trouble in the past with the media, but Milton Bradley is a Terrell Owens type player. He doesn't get along with anyone, and usually becomes more of a problem than a help to the team.

DumpJerry
11-16-2009, 07:02 PM
This from a fanbase that welcomed Carl "The Truth" Everett and Albert "Joey" Belle with open arms for a few seasons? For shame. This club has always welcomed those who are "different" than regular boring players...

I'm not a fan of Mr Bradley at all and I think he needs to get his head straight before playing baseball again, but I wouldn't close the door on any player that can perform at his (pre-Cubs) level.

Maybe I'd think about it if the Cubs ate 75% of his salary and also would take on Linebrink... :D:

Carl Everett was one of the biggest leaders on this team. He had trouble in the past with the media, but Milton Bradley is a Terrell Owens type player. He doesn't get along with anyone, and usually becomes more of a problem than a help to the team.
oeo, you're correct. Everett was a goof, but he did not cause the problems Bradley seems to cause wherever he goes. Also, there is the challenge of getting Bradley to play close to 100 games in a season.

cards press box
11-16-2009, 07:15 PM
A spade is a spade. A stupid rumor is a stupid rumor.

For what it's worth, the Tribune has posted an article (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/11/report-of-three-way-trade-talks-involving-adrian-gonzalez-to-the-white-sox-raise-complex-issues.html) about the Adrian Gonzalez rumor.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 07:18 PM
For what it's worth, the Tribune has posted an article (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/11/report-of-three-way-trade-talks-involving-adrian-gonzalez-to-the-white-sox-raise-complex-issues.html) about the Adrian Gonzalez rumor.
Ok. So they're reporting on someone else's report of an anonymous report. All is illuminated.

DumpJerry
11-16-2009, 07:19 PM
For what it's worth, the Tribune has posted an article (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/11/report-of-three-way-trade-talks-involving-adrian-gonzalez-to-the-white-sox-raise-complex-issues.html) about the Adrian Gonzalez rumor.
It's not worth much since they are relying on Soxnet and not a team source

Brian26
11-16-2009, 07:37 PM
Carl Everett was one of the biggest leaders on this team. He had trouble in the past with the media, but Milton Bradley is a Terrell Owens type player. He doesn't get along with anyone, and usually becomes more of a problem than a help to the team.

100% correct. Everett was a true leader behind the scenes, and there was a method to his madness. Lots of stories about him helping the young guys out and also kicking AJ's ass into action down the stretch.

Bradley is a nutjob.

Frater Perdurabo
11-16-2009, 08:42 PM
I posted this on Wednesday, 11/11/09, in this thread:

Paulie to the Giants
Gonzalez to the Sox
Prospects to the Padres
Make it happen!
:D:

Maybe even a blind squirrel like me occasionally finds a nut. :tongue:

JB98
11-16-2009, 08:49 PM
This from a fanbase that welcomed Carl "The Truth" Everett and Albert "Joey" Belle with open arms for a few seasons? For shame. This club has always welcomed those who are "different" than regular boring players...

I'm not a fan of Mr Bradley at all and I think he needs to get his head straight before playing baseball again, but I wouldn't close the door on any player that can perform at his (pre-Cubs) level.

Maybe I'd think about it if the Cubs ate 75% of his salary and also would take on Linebrink... :D:

We had "open arms" for Joey Belle? Really? There were quite a few Sox fans who did not like him, including me.

I did, however, like Carl Everett. His views on the world might be a little out of step with the mainstream, but he played hard for the Sox.

We don't need Milton Bradley on the South Side.

cards press box
11-16-2009, 08:55 PM
It's not worth much since they are relying on Soxnet and not a team source

True enough but we don't know whether the writer, Mark Gonzalez, spoke to team sources about these rumors but was not at liberty to quote such sources, even anonymously.

Ok. So they're reporting on someone else's report of an anonymous report. All is illuminated.

No, as discussed above, nothing is illuminated. I do, however, appreciate the reference (at least, I think it's a reference) to Jonathan Safran Foer's novel Everything Is Illuminated, later made into a film of the same name.

Redus Redux
11-16-2009, 09:51 PM
EII is a great film. Really hard to make a WWII-themed movie these days with a completely fresh approach. Not that it is entirely about WWII but is related.

Flight #24
11-16-2009, 10:13 PM
Not sure I buy the "Sox would have too many holes if they do the deal" theory.

OF: Quentin-CF-Rios
IF: Gonzalez-Beckham-Ramirez-Teahen-AJ
DH:
SP: Peavy-Buehrle-Floyd-Danks-Garcia
RP: Jenks-Thornton-RP-Carrasco-Pena-Linebrink

Now, that looks like some solid holes. But CF you'd have Danks (or Rios and you get an LF), and you could always resign Pods for what - $2-3M max?

DH: There are a ton of cheap guys out there, including Thome, maybe even Dye, etc.

RP: This is the biggie. Ideally you'd dump Linebrink, but seems unlikely so he's mop-up and you find someone.

So I'd deal some combo of Flowers, Danks, Hudson, Viciedo, Morel. Ideally I'd keep Flowers & Danks because those are the areas of real need next year and in other forthcoming years.

Taliesinrk
11-16-2009, 10:14 PM
This from a fanbase that welcomed Carl "The Truth" Everett and Albert "Joey" Belle with open arms for a few seasons? For shame. This club has always welcomed those who are "different" than regular boring players...

I'm not a fan of Mr Bradley at all and I think he needs to get his head straight before playing baseball again, but I wouldn't close the door on any player that can perform at his (pre-Cubs) level.

Maybe I'd think about it if the Cubs ate 75% of his salary and also would take on Linebrink... :D:

Others have commented already, but I'd like to take it a step further. For a Sox fan to use Everett in the same sentence as Joey B. or Bradley is pathetic. I'm not saying that the nickname "Jurassic Carl" isn't funny, but you have to respect what he did in a Sox uniform. Whether or not you agree with his personal views, he (at least from what I saw) always played his ass off and was a true competitor. I really like some of the guys on the team now, but frankly, since 2005, the team has been missing the type of attitude he brought.

Plus, how can you not love someone who single-handedly tears Phil Gardner apart in the World Series and (to my knowledge, even before Ozzie or AJ) tells the media and fans what all White Sox fans already know about Wrigley Field??? The guy was intense, and certainly not main-stream, but I'd take 100 Carl Everetts and guys who cared and played the game hard over a Manny Ramirez any day of the week.

Crede24Thome25
11-17-2009, 08:34 AM
Ken willliams is trying to acquire Adrian Gonzalez in a three way deal with Anaheim and San Diego. The trade isn't official but still exciting.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/soxnet/2009/11/report-sox-pads-angels-talking-three-way-deal-involving-konerko-gonzalez-and-prospects.html

doublem23
11-17-2009, 08:37 AM
Ken willliams is trying to acquire Adrian Gonzalez in a three way deal with Anaheim and San Diego. The trade isn't official but still exciting.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/soxnet/2009/11/report-sox-pads-angels-talking-three-way-deal-involving-konerko-gonzalez-and-prospects.html

This only about a week late.

twentywontowin
11-17-2009, 08:48 AM
Others have commented already, but I'd like to take it a step further. For a Sox fan to use Everett in the same sentence as Joey B. or Bradley is pathetic. I'm not saying that the nickname "Jurassic Carl" isn't funny, but you have to respect what he did in a Sox uniform. Whether or not you agree with his personal views, he (at least from what I saw) always played his ass off and was a true competitor. I really like some of the guys on the team now, but frankly, since 2005, the team has been missing the type of attitude he brought.

Plus, how can you not love someone who single-handedly tears Phil Gardner apart in the World Series and (to my knowledge, even before Ozzie or AJ) tells the media and fans what all White Sox fans already know about Wrigley Field??? The guy was intense, and certainly not main-stream, but I'd take 100 Carl Everetts and guys who cared and played the game hard over a Manny Ramirez any day of the week.

Nothing beat Carl in Game 3 of the WS standing up on the dugout rail yelling at Phil Garner to "shut your goddamn mouth". We need another guy like that who cares.

Let's see how all of this plays out, the rumor is now heating up on the stove.

spawn
11-17-2009, 09:17 AM
Ken willliams is trying to acquire Adrian Gonzalez in a three way deal with Anaheim and San Diego. The trade isn't official but still exciting.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/soxnet/2009/11/report-sox-pads-angels-talking-three-way-deal-involving-konerko-gonzalez-and-prospects.html
It's not only not official, it isn't even close to being a reality.

hi im skot
11-17-2009, 09:50 AM
Others have commented already, but I'd like to take it a step further. For a Sox fan to use Everett in the same sentence as Joey B. or Bradley is pathetic. I'm not saying that the nickname "Jurassic Carl" isn't funny, but you have to respect what he did in a Sox uniform. Whether or not you agree with his personal views, he (at least from what I saw) always played his ass off and was a true competitor. I really like some of the guys on the team now, but frankly, since 2005, the team has been missing the type of attitude he brought.

Plus, how can you not love someone who single-handedly tears Phil Gardner apart in the World Series and (to my knowledge, even before Ozzie or AJ) tells the media and fans what all White Sox fans already know about Wrigley Field??? The guy was intense, and certainly not main-stream, but I'd take 100 Carl Everetts and guys who cared and played the game hard over a Manny Ramirez any day of the week.

Carl Everett will always be one of my favorite former Sox players.

WhiffleBall
11-17-2009, 09:56 AM
This deal makes no sense for the Angels unless we take Gary Matthews Jr contract. In order for it to make sense and from reading everything out there on this topic it seems that it would be Konerko to Angels for GMj and a prospect or two. Then we would take that prospect from the Angels and bundle him with some combo of Flowers/JDanks/Hudson/Morel/Vicedio. All of whom IMHO are expendable for Gonzalez.

The numbers do work out for us if it does happen. Konerko's $12 million is off the books with GMj adding $10 million, and Gonzalez adding $4.5 million. So for an extra $2.5 million we get a serviceable, albeit overpaid, outfielder plus we get a certifiable superstar! That would fill out our outfield but we would still need to find a DH and leadoff hitter. It's also possible that Kenny would ask for and possibly receive a bit of cash from the Angels, perhaps $2.5 million to make it even.

Adding to my optimism that this may actually happen is the Angel's past interested in Konerko, his relationship with Mike Soscia, and the fact that most everyone agrees the Padres got legitimate talent from us for Peavy. Both Paulie and GMj would more than likely waive their no trade clauses for this deal.

Working against this trade is the fact that SD has a new GM who is just starting. He hasn't even hired all of his staff members yet. Since AG has 2 years left on his contract it would be prudent for him to wait at least until the all star break before trading his last major player. He also is extremely familiar with the Red Sox farm system. If he has a really strong attachment to some of those players then it's probably just a matter of time before the Red Sox get AG.

Based on the negatives unless he is blown away by the our offer then I don't see this happening. Of course the crazy ownership of the Padres could step in and force him to do something so who knows.

Heffalump
11-17-2009, 10:12 AM
Others have commented already, but I'd like to take it a step further. For a Sox fan to use Everett in the same sentence as Joey B. or Bradley is pathetic. I'm not saying that the nickname "Jurassic Carl" isn't funny, but you have to respect what he did in a Sox uniform. Whether or not you agree with his personal views, he (at least from what I saw) always played his ass off and was a true competitor. I really like some of the guys on the team now, but frankly, since 2005, the team has been missing the type of attitude he brought.

Plus, how can you not love someone who single-handedly tears Phil Gardner apart in the World Series and (to my knowledge, even before Ozzie or AJ) tells the media and fans what all White Sox fans already know about Wrigley Field??? The guy was intense, and certainly not main-stream, but I'd take 100 Carl Everetts and guys who cared and played the game hard over a Manny Ramirez any day of the week.

Very well said. Carl was a nutjob, but on the field he gave it everything he had. A true "grinder".

TheOldRoman
11-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Very well said. Carl was a nutjob, but on the field he gave it everything he had. A true "grinder".No, he wasn't even a nutjob. He was outspoken and opinionated, but his "crazy" persona evolved (see what I did there) from "ZOMG, he has views different than mine! ROFLOL!1!!"

The only place Carl was "hated" was in Boston. That wasn't the first time the Boston media drove someone out of town. He was decent but unspectacular for the Sox in 05, but I think he was integral in the locker room. I was mad when he ripped the team in the offseason, but it looks like he was right. The vets became fat and lazy, and they didn't like any young "whippersnappers" coming in and trying do things. If the Sox won, great. If not, no big deal.

JohnnyInnsbrook
11-17-2009, 10:49 AM
It's not only not official, it isn't even close to being a reality.

Per Cowley

Sun-Times first reported the Sox were interested in Adrian Gonzalez back on Oct. 6, and was informed by the club couldn't happen.http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/5797014574

Then some site called SoxNet.net - written in the basement of a trekkie turned blogger - jumps on the pile late with no sources.http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/5796981254

dickallen15
11-17-2009, 11:21 AM
I find it hysterical Carl Everett is praised around here for his "leadership" and Konerko is slammed. Did anyone actually watch the 2005 playoffs? Do you remember who was the deserving MVP of the 2005 ALCS? Does anyone remember who then hit the biggest home run maybe in team history? I know some will say Pods but the game was tied and the Sox might have still won. Without Paulie's GS, the Sox definitely lose. I'll take Paulie's performance over a guy popping off at the opposition's manager any day of the week. BTW, why is Geoff Blum's HR never mentioned as a big one. It was basically the same as Pods, if not bigger because the Sox were about out of pitchers in game 3.

Balfanman
11-17-2009, 11:36 AM
I find it hysterical Carl Everett is praised around here for his "leadership" and Konerko is slammed. Did anyone actually watch the 2005 playoffs? Do you remember who was the deserving MVP of the 2005 ALCS? Does anyone remember who then hit the biggest home run maybe in team history? I know some will say Pods but the game was tied and the Sox might have still won. Without Paulie's GS, the Sox definitely lose. I'll take Paulie's performance over a guy popping off at the opposition's manager any day of the week. BTW, why is Geoff Blum's HR never mentioned as a big one. It was basically the same as Pods, if not bigger because the Sox were about out of pitchers in game 3.

I believe that is because people view Carl Everett as more of a vocal leader. You then go in to "on the field" performance. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Konerko wasn't the better on the field player in 2005.
I have never been in the locker room and am just surmising this from media reports and message board conversation but I don't think that Konerko is the teamleader that he's made out to be by many people. There have been reports in the past that Konerko feels threatened by younger players that may someday be his replacement, and therefore is not very helpful to them. Then all the stuff with the younger players this past season. JMHO

dickallen15
11-17-2009, 11:44 AM
I believe that is because people view Carl Everett as more of a vocal leader. You then go in to "on the field" performance. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Konerko wasn't the better on the field player in 2005.
I have never been in the locker room and am just surmising this from media reports and message board conversation but I don't think that Konerko is the teamleader that he's made out to be by many people. There have been reports in the past that Konerko feels threatened by younger players that may someday be his replacement, and therefore is not very helpful to them. Then all the stuff with the younger players this past season. JMHO

His teammates refer to Paulie as "The King". I think that's all you really need to know.

UChicagoHP
11-17-2009, 11:51 AM
Vocal leadership is pretty over-rated in baseball, as the game simply is not geared towards the rah-rah element. If a guy works hard everyday, shows up on time, and doesn't fight with his team-mates/management/media, he becomes a pefect example for the youngsters. The White Sox have a bunch of "leaders" who fit the bill, and A.J. is probably the "best" of the lot, from what I've heard.

Edit: I'm certainly not holding me breath, but bringing in Gonzales(who would/will put up MVP numbers in our park) would be a huge step in the right direction. I'm assuming it will cost KW one of Danks and Floyd, and I'd also assume KW would prefer to deal Floyd.

JermaineDye05
11-17-2009, 11:51 AM
Per Cowley

http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/5797014574

http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/5796981254

Though I don't believe this rumor. I don't think Cowley has the credentials to bash someone else.

I mean that's like McGwire calling someone a cheater.

Heffalump
11-17-2009, 11:58 AM
No, he wasn't even a nutjob. He was outspoken and opinionated, but his "crazy" persona evolved (see what I did there) from "ZOMG, he has views different than mine! ROFLOL!1!!"

The only place Carl was "hated" was in Boston. That wasn't the first time the Boston media drove someone out of town. He was decent but unspectacular for the Sox in 05, but I think he was integral in the locker room. I was mad when he ripped the team in the offseason, but it looks like he was right. The vets became fat and lazy, and they didn't like any young "whippersnappers" coming in and trying do things. If the Sox won, great. If not, no big deal.


He WAS a nutjob. He didn't believe that dinosaurs existed. I'm not saying its a bad thing. He was just a kooky guy in his personal beliefs. I loved the guy when he was on the Sox.

munchman33
11-17-2009, 12:09 PM
He WAS a nutjob. He didn't believe that dinosaurs existed. I'm not saying its a bad thing. He was just a kooky guy in his personal beliefs. I loved the guy when he was on the Sox.

I believe dinosaurs existed. But calling someone a "nutjob" because of their religious beliefs is a little offensive. There's a difference between having a laugh because you believe someone's wrong about something and calling them insane for holding a view that millions on the planet do.

kittle42
11-17-2009, 12:22 PM
I believe dinosaurs existed. But calling someone a "nutjob" because of their religious beliefs is a little offensive. There's a difference between having a laugh because you believe someone's wrong about something and calling them insane for holding a view that millions on the planet do.

Is there a dislike button? :D:

steely712
11-17-2009, 01:11 PM
I saw the other post on here about Gonzalez, but there were some details that yahoo put on their site, could be fake, but they have Soxnet as a source, so there might be some truth behind this.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors;_ylt=AhsrUcHH5_bbqwlZtXI7bYMRvLYF

:thinking::thinking:

thomas35forever
11-17-2009, 01:19 PM
Again, the Sox don't have many prospects left. If they trade away what little they have to get Gonzalez, our team will be in trouble in the future. I just can't see this happening.