PDA

View Full Version : Move Ordonez's Contract To Make Room For Schilling's


joecrede
09-28-2003, 10:50 PM
Reading today, it's looking more and more likely that the D'Backs are going to have to move Schilling (I believe makes $10-$12M)this offseason for payroll reasons. Putting aside his past comments about never playing for the chairman for a second :D:, I think he's a player who the Sox should have their sights on.

If they can somehow resign Colon, I'd advocate dealing Ordonez for a SS and the best young hitter they can find. The Padres are probably the best deal out there with Greene and Nady fitting those descriptions.

Dealing Maggs opens so many opportunities for this team that it almost has to be done IMO.

oheeoh...magglio
09-28-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Reading today, it's looking more and more likely that the D'Backs are going to have to move Schilling (I believe makes $10-$12M)this offseason for payroll reasons. Putting aside his past comments about never playing for the chairman for a second :D:, I think he's a player who the Sox should have their sights on.

If they can somehow resign Colon, I'd advocate dealing Ordonez for a SS and the best young hitter they can find. The Padres are probably the best deal out there with Greene and Nady fitting those descriptions.

Dealing Maggs opens so many opportunities for this team that it almost has to be done IMO.

I love ordonez, he's been my favorite player since he came up in '97, but trading him looks like a better and better option with every passing day.

Daver
09-28-2003, 10:57 PM
Schilling would retire before he played for the White Sox.Book it.

oheeoh...magglio
09-28-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Schilling would retire before he played for the White Sox.Book it.

Ahh Daver, thanks for shattering our pipedreams so soundly. :)

JRIG
09-28-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Schilling would retire before he played for the White Sox.Book it.

Schilling has gone on the record saying whatever team he plays for has to have either a dome or a retractable roof due to his wife's skin cancer.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2003, 11:16 PM
The other reason Curt will never play for the White Sox was documented in the Arizona Republic in July 2000 when speculation abounded that he was going to be traded from the Phillies.

The White Sox were listed as a potential suitor which Schilling quickly shot down in the story. During the labor impasse of 1994 Schilling was one of the key union player leaders involved in the discussions with management.

According to Schilling during one of those meetings, Jerry Reinsdorf made a comment that Curt took as being a personal insult towards him.

He has never revealed exactly what Uncle Jerry said but he did say he would never allow himself to be traded to the Sox under any circumstances as long as Reinsdorf owned the club.

At this point in his career Daver is right, he'd retire first.

Lip

VeeckAsInWreck
09-29-2003, 12:51 AM
Are you guys nuts? Move Maggs? No friggin' way.
You can move anyone else on the roster but him, unless MLB wanted to give us Vlad Guerrero in exchange. Then I would understand. But not for a SP that is close to ending his career.

RichH55
09-29-2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
Are you guys nuts? Move Maggs? No friggin' way.
You can move anyone else on the roster but him, unless MLB wanted to give us Vlad Guerrero in exchange. Then I would understand. But not for a SP that is close to ending his career.

Mags is under contract for exactly One more year....No guarantee that he will be here in 2005 even

LASOXFAN
09-29-2003, 01:04 AM
why move anybody?

Beat the Detroit Tigers and the Sox are in the playoffs. I know, it's asking a lot.

Win1ForMe
09-29-2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
Are you guys nuts? Move Maggs? No friggin' way.
You can move anyone else on the roster but him, unless MLB wanted to give us Vlad Guerrero in exchange. Then I would understand. But not for a SP that is close to ending his career.

Agreed. But I think you'll notice that this board is full of insane people.

Maggs is a player you build a team around. Thank God none of these lunatics are running this team.

doublem23
09-29-2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Agreed. But I think you'll notice that this board is full of insane people.

Maggs is a player you build a team around. Thank God none of these lunatics are running this team.

:KW
I will trade three pitchers for one, though! Wheeeeeeeeee!

39thandWallace
09-29-2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
why move anybody?

Beat the Detroit Tigers and the Sox are in the playoffs. I know, it's asking a lot.

Signing Schilling would be like when we signed Tom Seaver a waste of time. Or Charlie Hough, Steve Carlton, George Foster. This used to be the place pitchers came to die let's not get back to that.

I completely agree with LASOXFAN you have a great team here all they need is a coach.

jabrch
09-29-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Schilling would retire before he played for the White Sox.Book it.

100% correct...there is absolutely no chance Schilling would play for JR. Now if JR sold the team...

Mammoo
09-29-2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
If they can somehow resign Colon, I'd advocate dealing Ordonez for a SS and the best young hitter they can find. The Padres are probably the best deal out there with Greene and Nady fitting those descriptions.

If you trade Maggs, who's one of the best players in MLB, I want a topflight pitcher and a up and coming shortstop (minor league variety) or I don't make that deal.

RichH55
09-29-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Mammoo
If you trade Maggs, who's one of the best players in MLB, I want a topflight pitcher and a up and coming shortstop (minor league variety) or I don't make that deal.

Do you do it for say: Greene, Nady(though Bay was the better prospect), and say maybe Brain Lawrence, with an exchange of minor leaguers as well(We getting the "better" one)?

Hangar18
09-29-2003, 10:14 AM
am i hearing that right? Trade a superstar in his prime,
for a just past his prime Pitcher? that doesnt make sense.
Instead, I propose instead of One or the Other, why dont we go for BOTH?? Schillings contract would only be for one year I believe....so we woulldnt be "stuck" with the contract for that long. a Rotation of Colon, Loiaza, Buehrle, Schilling, Garland
would be pretty hard to screw up, whoever the new mgr would be

Mammoo
09-29-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
[B a Rotation of Colon, Loiaza, Buehrle, Schilling, Garland
would be pretty hard to screw up, whoever the new mgr would be [/B]

You've got Garland right where he belongs...fifth starter!!!

JRIG
09-29-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by 39thandWallace
Signing Schilling would be like when we signed Tom Seaver a waste of time. Or Charlie Hough, Steve Carlton, George Foster. This used to be the place pitchers came to die let's not get back to that.



Don't forget Jerry Reuss!

TDog
09-29-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by 39thandWallace
Signing Schilling would be like when we signed Tom Seaver a waste of time. Or Charlie Hough, Steve Carlton, George Foster. This used to be the place pitchers came to die let's not get back to that....

The Sox didn't sign Seaver. They picked him up in the peculiar free agent compensation pool that existed at the time. Going into 1984, when the Sox had the best starting rotation in the division (some said all of baseball), they added Seaver from the Mets roster. Some said they didn't need him. As it turned out, with the Sox he was the only consistent pitcher in 1984 and was the best pitcher in 1985.

You're right about Steve Carlton, but I never George Foster pitch.

Lip Man 1
09-29-2003, 12:15 PM
Let's see.....

Tom Seaver won 32 games in two years...that was a waste.

Jerry Koosman won 22 games and saved 5 more in two years...that was a waste.

Charlie Hough won nine games, started 29, threw almost 200 innings and had an ERA of 4.02....that was a waste.

Kirk McCaskill had 22 wins and 7 saves in four years (being used in relief in 94 and 95)...yea that was a waste.

Kevin Tapani had 14 wins in his only season with the Sox...a definate waste!

Certainly we would have been better off giving the ball to such "can't miss kids," like Scott Ruffcorn, Rod Bolton, Robert Ellis, Joel Davis and Reggie Patterson.

Carlton was with the Sox for a few months at best and Reuss went 13-9 with a 3.44 ERA for a bad White Sox team in 1988. and was the team pitching MVP.

Yea Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright and Jon Garland put up far better numbers then that!

But of course the Sox didn't need Kenny "The Cast Off's" Rogers 12 wins or couldn't have used a Jeff Suppan at the back end of the rotation. (that would have meant taking innings away from Neil Cotts, Jon Adkins, Josh Stewart or Danny Wright! Horrors!!)

Lip

RichH55
09-29-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Let's see.....

Tom Seaver won 32 games in two years...that was a waste.

Jerry Koosman won 22 games and saved 5 more in two years...that was a waste.

Charlie Hough won nine games, started 29, threw almost 200 innings and had an ERA of 4.02....that was a waste.

Kirk McCaskill had 22 wins and 7 saves in four years (being used in relief in 94 and 95)...yea that was a waste.

Kevin Tapani had 14 wins in his only season with the Sox...a definate waste!

Certainly we would have been better off giving the ball to such "can't miss kids," like Scott Ruffcorn, Rod Bolton, Robert Ellis, Joel Davis and Reggie Patterson.

Carlton was with the Sox for a few months at best and Reuss went 13-9 with a 3.44 ERA for a bad White Sox team in 1988. and was the team pitching MVP.

Yea Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright and Jon Garland put up far better numbers then that!

But of course the Sox didn't need Kenny "The Cast Off's" Rogers 12 wins or couldn't have used a Jeff Suppan at the back end of the rotation. (that would have meant taking innings away from Neil Cotts, Jon Adkins, Josh Stewart or Danny Wright! Horrors!!)

Lip


And Rick Helling was lights out as well...that would have been cheap. Wright had 14 wins the year before right? Since we aren't looking at any of Rogers other numbers, then this would be relevant as well?

Dan Gelo
09-30-2003, 05:25 AM
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know Maggs avg with men on base? Or better yet, how many dp's did he ground into this year?

39thandWallace
10-02-2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Let's see.....

Tom Seaver won 32 games in two years...that was a waste.

Jerry Koosman won 22 games and saved 5 more in two years...that was a waste.

Charlie Hough won nine games, started 29, threw almost 200 innings and had an ERA of 4.02....that was a waste.

Kirk McCaskill had 22 wins and 7 saves in four years (being used in relief in 94 and 95)...yea that was a waste.

Kevin Tapani had 14 wins in his only season with the Sox...a definate waste!

Certainly we would have been better off giving the ball to such "can't miss kids," like Scott Ruffcorn, Rod Bolton, Robert Ellis, Joel Davis and Reggie Patterson.

Carlton was with the Sox for a few months at best and Reuss went 13-9 with a 3.44 ERA for a bad White Sox team in 1988. and was the team pitching MVP.

Yea Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright and Jon Garland put up far better numbers then that!

But of course the Sox didn't need Kenny "The Cast Off's" Rogers 12 wins or couldn't have used a Jeff Suppan at the back end of the rotation. (that would have meant taking innings away from Neil Cotts, Jon Adkins, Josh Stewart or Danny Wright! Horrors!!)

Lip

That is what is great about the Internet you can look up all these stats. Good job! Now how many divisions did we win with the pitchers I mentioned? 0. Thank You.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2003, 01:14 PM
And how many divisions have we won with all these great young pitchers?

Thank you!

If in both cases the Sox aren't going to win squat, I'd much rather win 85-90 games a year then 75-80.

Lip

voodoochile
10-02-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by 39thandWallace
That is what is great about the Internet you can look up all these stats. Good job! Now how many divisions did we win with the pitchers I mentioned? 0. Thank You.

Actually, it's interesting you point that out, because the two guys who are on that list who were brought in to be 5th starters/long relief/extra veteran arms (Koosman and McCaskill) both contributed to division championships and McCaskill almost contributed to two if the WS doesn't get canceled he might have a ring to show for his effort.

soxtalker
10-02-2003, 01:19 PM
In the young pitchers vs. old pitchers debate, there are plenty of examples of failures that both sides can cite (with the Sox).

Lip Man 1
10-02-2003, 01:23 PM
Voodoo:

Thank you I was just getting ready to post that Jerry and Kirk were part of divisional championship teams but you beat me to it.
brain cramp for staying up to watch the Red Sox / A's game.

Lip

fuzzy_patters
10-02-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Actually, it's interesting you point that out, because the two guys who are on that list who were brought in to be 5th starters/long relief/extra veteran arms (Koosman and McCaskill) both contributed to division championships and McCaskill almost contributed to two if the WS doesn't get canceled he might have a ring to show for his effort.

Those guys were the fifth starter/long relief guys on divisional championship teams, but who were they behind? They were behind young guns like Rich Dotson, Lamarr Hoytt, Floyd Bannister, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere. Would you rather sign a mediocre pitcher like Kenny Rogers, or would you rather find out if one of your youngsters can be Wilson Alvarez. I would rather give the youngster a chance. I am sure Carlos Zambrano and Dontrelle Willis would agree with me. I guess it just depends on if you are they type to take risks or not. I'm not afraid of failure.

voodoochile
10-02-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Those guys were the fifth starter/long relief guys on divisional championship teams, but who were they behind? They were behind young guns like Rich Dotson, Lamarr Hoytt, Floyd Bannister, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere. Would you rather sign a mediocre pitcher like Kenny Rogers, or would you rather find out if one of your youngsters can be Wilson Alvarez. I would rather give the youngster a chance. I am sure Carlos Zambrano and Dontrelle Willis would agree with me. I guess it just depends on if you are they type to take risks or not. I'm not afraid of failure.

Didn't Alvarez pitch a no-no in his first MLB start? I mean when one of the Sox youngsters comes on like that (or like Buehrle) then they can have all the starts they want, but the team has been letting them learn on the job and it has cost them in recent years. How close was this team to the playoffs this season? Would one more veteran pitcher have helped?

I'm not personally afraid of failure either, but the Sox collectively should be. That is the only way they are going to dig their way out of the hole they themselves have created.

fuzzy_patters
10-02-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Didn't Alvarez pitch a no-no in his first MLB start? I mean when one of the Sox youngsters comes on like that (or like Buehrle) then they can have all the starts they want, but the team has been letting them learn on the job and it has cost them in recent years. How close was this team to the playoffs this season? Would one more veteran pitcher have helped?

I'm not personally afraid of failure either, but the Sox collectively should be. That is the only way they are going to dig their way out of the hole they themselves have created.

Alvarez threw a no-hitter in his first White Sox start, but he then struggled during 91-92 bouncing back and forth between the rotation, the bullpen, and AAA. Similarly, after pitching great in 1990, Alex Fernandez was very inconsisten in 91-92 and spent July of 92 in AAA. It sounds a lot like Wright and Garland, actually. Bere, meanwhile, was kind of off the radar, obscured by guys like Baldwin and Ruffcorn, and came out of nowhere to help the Sox make the playoffs in 93. Relying on young pitchers can be high risk/high reward, but I would rather take a chance at getting a stud than have a mediocre veteran.