PDA

View Full Version : LA Times: Ordonez Deal still Possible


fledgedrallycap
01-14-2004, 09:01 AM
Although the article references Richard Hidalgo from the Stro's as the Dodgers primary target, the Sox are still out there:

"The Dodgers haven't shut the door on Chicago White Sox right fielder Magglio Ordonez, the subject of serious trade talks between the teams at the winter meetings, but the White Sox haven't backed down on their demand for starter Odalis Perez, setup man Guillermo Mota, one of the Dodgers' top two pitching prospects, Edwin Jackson or Greg Miller, and a fourth player. "


http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers14jan14,1,5102552.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

mantis1212
01-14-2004, 09:10 AM
they wish!

soxfan26
01-14-2004, 09:14 AM
Hidalgo would bring them less production at basically the same price. Hidalgo's set to make $12m this season, and $15m in 2005, or there is a $2m buyout on the contract. I can't imagine taking on $27m for Hidalgo. His monster 2000 season aside, he is just average, or a little bit below offensively. The $15m in 2005 would be better spent on Maggs, and in a trade they might be able to negotiate an extension at that price.

With no viable alternative for us in RF, I like the idea of moving him to the Red Sox in a package deal that would bring us T. Nixon.

BeerHandle
01-14-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
Although the article references Richard Hidalgo from the Stro's as the Dodgers primary target, the Sox are still out there:

"The Dodgers haven't shut the door on Chicago White Sox right fielder Magglio Ordonez, the subject of serious trade talks between the teams at the winter meetings, but the White Sox haven't backed down on their demand for starter Odalis Perez, setup man Guillermo Mota, one of the Dodgers' top two pitching prospects, Edwin Jackson or Greg Miller, and a fourth player. "


http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers14jan14,1,5102552.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

I'm good with the trade, but who do we get to play right? Please, not Borchard!

Hangar18
01-14-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by BeerHandle
I'm good with the trade, but who do we get to play right? Please, not Borchard!

Jeremy Reed

hold2dibber
01-14-2004, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by BeerHandle
I'm good with the trade, but who do we get to play right? Please, not Borchard!

I assume that if the Sox were to trade Maggs without getting a RF in return, they'd let Borchard and Reed battle it out for the open OF position. Or they'd go out and sign someone (Mondesi? Mabry? Singleton?) with some of the Maggs $ they would have saved.

But it seems clear that the Dodgers aren't going to do the deal as proposed by the Sox. That deal has been reported forever - seems to me that if Maggs goes to LA, it won't be for the package of players reported (or the Sox will have to send $ or another player or something).

jeremyb1
01-14-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
Although the article references Richard Hidalgo from the Stro's as the Dodgers primary target, the Sox are still out there:

"The Dodgers haven't shut the door on Chicago White Sox right fielder Magglio Ordonez, the subject of serious trade talks between the teams at the winter meetings, but the White Sox haven't backed down on their demand for starter Odalis Perez, setup man Guillermo Mota, one of the Dodgers' top two pitching prospects, Edwin Jackson or Greg Miller, and a fourth player. "


http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers14jan14,1,5102552.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

A problem with the trade now is that perhaps the best part of that deal was the increased payroll flexibility to sign others and outside of Ponson there aren't a lot of attractive free agents left at this point.

kittle42
01-14-2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
perhaps the best part of that deal was the increased payroll flexibility to sign others

Well now, I don't think that was ever going to happen.

Hangar18
01-14-2004, 10:46 AM
The Dodgers are interested in keeping this Trade alive
for these 3 Reasons:

1. They Realize we have a Foolish Owner who mistakenly
has limited himself with an Arbitrary Payroll Figure (58 Mill)
and will have to release players

2. They Realize SOX have some of the BEST Players in the Majors and can acquire some of these home grown, already prepared, ML tested players for Cheap simply if theyre willing to spend the money

3. They Realize the SOX are eventually going to "Blink"
and just give Ordonez away for some bogus prospects,
and not the Boatload of Prospects that we are favoring.

LATruBlue
01-14-2004, 11:16 AM
Ok, thought I would comment on this article in the LA Times concerning Maggs and Hidalgo. Some of you here know I'm not here to antagonize anyone, just talking baseball, that's it.

I can tell you right now that the way the currently proposed trade offered by Kenny just ain't gonna happen. Evans has stated over and over again on local radio here that he is not contemplating trading his top gun minor league kids (most of all Jackson). As far as the Dodgers are concerned, Kenny's asking price is rather steep for a one year rental at $15 Million.

Do the Dodgers like Ordonez? Certaintly but the Hidalgo deal makes more sense for them and would still be an upgrade for the Dodgers. It is rumored that the Astros want to move Hidalgo because of his salary and because they have a young phenom named Jason Lane that is ready to play (in Biggio's spot). It is also believed that they need a speedy centerfielder who is also a decent leadoff guy.

Thus, I believe the possible proposed offer (based on what I've seen of other Dodger and Astros fans convos) will be Dave Roberts (cf) and Mota or a mid level prospect for Hidalgo and maybe around $4 Million. I could be wrong but it seems like the Astros really want to clear some salary, especially now and they have been trying to move Hidalgo for some time but no one really wanted to incur about $27 Million over the next two seasons.

I do think that Evans will still try to hang onto Mota and if he can then I think he will try to still trade Odalis Perez for a first baseman.

As far as the Dodgers trying to obtain Maggs, it is now widely believed that they are going to make a serious bid for him next year when he becomes a free agent instead.

soxtalker
01-14-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
A problem with the trade now is that perhaps the best part of that deal was the increased payroll flexibility to sign others and outside of Ponson there aren't a lot of attractive free agents left at this point.

Increased payroll flexibility would be useful as we progress into the season. It would have made things a lot easier last year, when KW was acquiring talent a mid-season.

fledgedrallycap
01-14-2004, 11:35 AM
LA, I happen to agree with your assessment in terms of Kenny asking for too much in return for a "rent-a-player". With Maggs in a contract year, he is asking for a ton in return.

SoxxoS
01-14-2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
LA, I happen to agree with your assessment in terms of Kenny asking for too much in return for a "rent-a-player". With Maggs in a contract year, he is asking for a ton in return.

The demand for a top 5 outfielder needs to be high, especially for the Dodgers who really have no offense. Plus, they subracted Kevin Brown for Jeff Weaver, which is a HUGE downgrade... their pitching isn't going to be as solid as last year with that trade. They haven't added anyone offensively minus Encarnacion, which won't help their power numbers. And they lost Brian Jordan.

If they want to go to the playoffs, IMO, they need Maggs. We aren't going to give him away for nothing...Miller or Jackson needs to be in the trade. I don't care so much about the other guys. You need to give up something to get it.

LATruBlue
01-14-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
If they want to go to the playoffs, IMO, they need Maggs. We aren't going to give him away for nothing...Miller or Jackson needs to be in the trade. I don't care so much about the other guys. You need to give up something to get it.

Maggs isn't the only available player that could provide the offense necessary for a playoff run as evidenced by the Dodgers pursueing Hidalgo. (Hidalgo isn't Maggs, but he's not chopped liver either.)

Yet the point that I think many WhiteSox fans seems to think won't happen is that the Dodgers could possibly get Maggs next season with only having to give up two draft picks.

Why does any one think the Dodgers HAVE to give Kenny what he wants when the Dodgers don't have to?

Is it wise for Kenny to ask such a steep price and not get anything (at least not from the Dodgers who are one of the few teams that have quality pitching available)? Or is it wiser for Kenny to be "forced" to having to trade Maggs at the witching hour and accept whatever he can get? Or is it wiser for Kenny to let Maggs walk and get two draft picks?

Seriously, it really seems like Kenny is heading down one of these paths if he continues to want so much in return.

Hangar18
01-14-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue

As far as the Dodgers trying to obtain Maggs, it is now widely believed that they are going to make a serious bid for him next year when he becomes a free agent instead.

Isnt this Depressing ? Knowing Maggs will end up a Brave, A Yankee, A Dodger, A DiamonBack, perhaps a Cardinal or
god forbid the Cubs

hold2dibber
01-14-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Maggs isn't the only available player that could provide the offense necessary for a playoff run as evidenced by the Dodgers pursueing Hidalgo. (Hidalgo isn't Maggs, but he's not chopped liver either.)

Yet the point that I think many WhiteSox fans seems to think won't happen is that the Dodgers could possibly get Maggs next season with only having to give up two draft picks.

Why does any one think the Dodgers HAVE to give Kenny what he wants when the Dodgers don't have to?

Is it wise for Kenny to ask such a steep price and not get anything (at least not from the Dodgers who are one of the few teams that have quality pitching available)? Or is it wiser for Kenny to be "forced" to having to trade Maggs at the witching hour and accept whatever he can get? Or is it wiser for Kenny to let Maggs walk and get two draft picks?

Seriously, it really seems like Kenny is heading down one of these paths if he continues to want so much in return.

I agree (as I posted earlier) that the Dodgers are very unlikely to do the deal that Kenny has reportedly been pursuing. I sure wouldn't if I were them, unless they were able to negotiate an extension with Maggs in advance.

With that said, if I were KW, I would first try like hell to re-sign Maggs. With Glad getting $14 million/year and Sheffield getting $13 million/year this offseason, I would think that Maggs would have backed off his reported demand for $15 million/year. So if he'll resign for maybe $11 or $12 million/year, I'd probably go that route. If it is clear, however, that he intends to play out his contract and become a free agent, if the Dodgers would take Maggs in return for Perez, Mota and a good pitching prospect (need not be Miller or Jackson) or for Perez and either Miller or Jackson, I'd probably do it. I think either of those deals would give the Sox the payroll flexibility to pursue Mondesi as a stop-gap replacement in right until Reed or Borchard is ready and would improve the Sox' thread-bare pitching corps. Anything less than that, and I'd keep Maggs because the Sox still might compete in the dog-crap AL Central next year anyway and then take the 2 draft choices when he bolts.

seventytwo
01-14-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Maggs isn't the only available player that could provide the offense necessary for a playoff run as evidenced by the Dodgers pursueing Hidalgo. (Hidalgo isn't Maggs, but he's not chopped liver either.)

Yet the point that I think many WhiteSox fans seems to think won't happen is that the Dodgers could possibly get Maggs next season with only having to give up two draft picks.

Why does any one think the Dodgers HAVE to give Kenny what he wants when the Dodgers don't have to?

Is it wise for Kenny to ask such a steep price and not get anything (at least not from the Dodgers who are one of the few teams that have quality pitching available)? Or is it wiser for Kenny to be "forced" to having to trade Maggs at the witching hour and accept whatever he can get? Or is it wiser for Kenny to let Maggs walk and get two draft picks?

Seriously, it really seems like Kenny is heading down one of these paths if he continues to want so much in return.

KW would be wise to hold on to Maggs until the trade deadline when we're languishing in 4th place. The Dodgers will be leading the NL in ERA (again) but will be near the bottom of the NL in hitting (again.) Evans is lucky to still have his job after his big moves of getting Burnitz and Henderson last year to shore up the lineup.

I don't think KW will be "forced" into accepting whatever he can get....I think teams will be lined up around the block to trade for Maggs, and the Dodgers will be wishing they had made the trade in the offseason.

LATruBlue
01-14-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I agree (as I posted earlier) that the Dodgers are very unlikely to do the deal that Kenny has reportedly been pursuing. I sure wouldn't if I were them, unless they were able to negotiate an extension with Maggs in advance.

I can really understand Kenny wanting to do the best thing for the WhiteSox, what GM wouldn't? But c'mon...

Agreed, no doubt that the WhiteSox would most defintely have leverage should they re-sign Maggs to a long term contract.

Also, should the Dodgers get Hidalgo, they will more than likely cease talks on Maggs and just wait on him next season (provided the WhiteSox not re-sign him to an extension).

Although it isn't inconceivable that talks won't be restarted on Konerko or Thomas for our first base needs, in lieu of Maggs, remote as it may be.

Anyway, we'll see hows this unfolds.

BTW, just fyi, it was said by a sports radio guy out here today that the Dodgers are very close to signing Ivan Rodriguez (I guess they were embarassed having been blindsided by the Angels). But who knows for sure??

LATruBlue
01-14-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by seventytwo
The Dodgers will be leading the NL in ERA (again) but will be near the bottom of the NL in hitting (again.) Evans is lucky to still have his job after his big moves of getting Burnitz and Henderson last year to shore up the lineup.

Doesn't building a first rate starting and relief pitching corp along with helping to replenish their farm system (i.e., Jackson, Miller, Loney, Gutierrez, etc.) account for anything towards his job? I would hope his job wasn't in jeopardy because of the signing of those two and because of his 4 and 5 (McGriff and Jordan) spots being injured for most of the season.

Rex Hudler
01-14-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Doesn't building a first rate starting and relief pitching corp along with helping to replenish their farm system (i.e., Jackson, Miller, Loney, Gutierrez, etc.) account for anything towards his job? I would hope his job wasn't in jeopardy because of the signing of those two along and because of his 4 and 5 (McGriff and Jordan)spots being injured for most of the season.

I agree. What will likely happen is that Evans will get booted just in time for another GM to come in and reap the benefits of the organization he has helped rebuild. It is no secret that the Dodgers organization was in shambles when he came in and there was very little continuity. They had fired many old Dodger personnel and the farm system was horrible. Evans has helped lead the way in setting them up to reap success in a year or two. I fear he will not be around to get the credit since the LA media is so short-sighted.

LATruBlue
01-14-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I agree. What will likely happen is that Evans will get booted just in time for another GM to come in and reap the benefits of the organization he has helped rebuild. It is no secret that the Dodgers organization was in shambles when he came in and there was very little continuity. They had fired many old Dodger personnel and the farm system was horrible. Evans has helped lead the way in setting them up to reap success in a year or two. I fear he will not be around to get the credit since the LA media is so short-sighted.

I like Evans. I think he has done a remarkable job. But unfortunately, you may be right. There is talk of Billy Beane possibly being the next Dodger GM.

longshot7
01-14-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Doesn't building a first rate starting and relief pitching corp along with helping to replenish their farm system (i.e., Jackson, Miller, Loney, Gutierrez, etc.) account for anything towards his job? I would hope his job wasn't in jeopardy because of the signing of those two and because of his 4 and 5 (McGriff and Jordan) spots being injured for most of the season.

I have to step in here. As a true Dodger fan, there is no way you can defend Dan Evans. Kevin Malone, as bad as he was, was light years ahead of this mental midget. First of all, he traded away Gary sheffield, the best player on the team. Second, he did nothing last year to address the offense problem. Got lucky with Gagne, Nomo. Despite having the Fox payroll, he refuses to go over the luxury tax threshold.

and who's their big free-agent signee this offseason? Yep, it's Bubba Trammell.

and as to rebuilding their farm system - Evans didn't even draft Jackson. Malone should get that credit too. Can you give credit to Evans for Lo Duca too? I don't think so.

He consistently gets hosed on trades - and on bad trades too! Why trade for James Baldwin, no matter who's it for - Brian Jordan or Jeromy Burnitz. I like the Blue, but Evans sux.

Hangar18
01-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Dan Evans "trade" of Eric Karros and Grudzalaniek
for Todd Hundley is one of the WORST Ive ever seen,
Payroll reduction or not

Hondo
01-14-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Dan Evans "trade" of Eric Karros and Grudzalaniek
for Todd Hundley is one of the WORST Ive ever seen,
Payroll reduction or not

Good point Hangar. I was shocked the Cubs got anything more than a bag of used balls for Hundley.

Say what you will about KW, but thank God nightly Dan Evans isn't our GM.

longshot7
01-14-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Dan Evans "trade" of Eric Karros and Grudzalaniek
for Todd Hundley is one of the WORST Ive ever seen,
Payroll reduction or not

Good one. I forgot that one!

LATruBlue
01-14-2004, 02:44 PM
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Dan Evans strikes me as being pragmatic and not a knee jerker. He won't trade the young guns. He is doing what he feels necessary to free up money. I support his actions.

If he was as bad as some of you say he is, I would think you'd have Perez, Mota, Jackson/Miller and a 4th prospect by now plus cash to boot.

Like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, good luck for '04.

Rex Hudler
01-14-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Dan Evans strikes me as being pragmatic and not a knee jerker. He won't trade the young guns. He is doing what he feels necessary to free up money. I support his actions.

If he was as bad as some of you say he is, I would think you'd have Perez, Mota, Jackson/Miller and a 4th prospect by now plus cash to boot.

Like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, good luck for '04.

I'm with you TruBlue.... No, I won't argue that he didn't make some bad moves, but he inherited a ton of terrible contracts, many unhappy players and he took some chances. McGriff could have helped last year, but he got off to a slow start then got hurt. I understand what he was trying to do with Hundley last year, but it certainly didn't work out. Keep in mind that Joey "Ballgame" Thurston was supposed to step right in at 2B and failed. If he steps in and McGriff performs like he has in the past, that trade isn't as bad, even with Hundley doing nothing.

Sheffield wanted out and basically demanded to be traded. Brian Jordan never performed like he should have. Jeromy Burnitz didn't live up to expectations. Shawn Green had a down year last year.

A lot of things have not worked out that could have. It is easy to look back and blame the GM every time a player fails.

No, Evans is not responsible for drafting every one of the Ddgers prospects. But the GM is responsible for making sure the right people are in place and that the proper systems are in place to succeed. In my opinion, the Dodgers system is in much better shape now. Also, keep in mind that Evans was working for the Dodgers as a consultant the year before he was named GM so he did have some effect before he got the post.

I am not anointing Danny as the best GM in baseball nor saying everything he does is right. But I do feel he has gotten a bad rap and been the victim of some bad luck. And I do believe that the Dodgers organization is not far from putting everything together and being very good again.

longshot7
01-14-2004, 04:53 PM
First of all, if I'm Evans - I make the Ordonez trade. There is still no offense at Chavez Ravine. Second, I would like to point out that I went to about 10 Dodger games last year - I really do like them & support them, but Dan Evans & Fox have driven them into the ground. Who created the atmosphere so Sheffield would want to leave? How did he think Hundley could even come close to Karros/Grud's #'s? The list goes on...

I cancelled my Blue season tix after they traded Gary, and next year will probably get Angels season tix. The Dodgers aren't even trying. How can they hope to compete? Until Evans & Fox are gone, the Dodgers will be terrible.

but I'll agree to disagree. good discussion.

Hangar18
01-14-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by longshot7


I cancelled my Blue season tix after they traded Gary, and next year will probably get Angels season tix.

Say Man, You didnt tell me you had Dodger season tickets
last year? When I met a few of you, im sure I didnt ask,
but doesnt it feel Weird to have another teams Tickets ?
I would feel like I was living in a foreign country or something.
Do you wear your SOX stuff when you go to the games?
Do you still have those SOX license Plate Covers ?

longshot7
01-14-2004, 05:23 PM
Well, I live here, and I need to go to games. I picked the Dodgers because they were in the NL so there wouldn't be any conflicts w/ the Sox. The angels might be a little harder sell - but they'll have a great team next year - and it's not like I'm going to root for them against the Sox. It's like they're my #2 team. I just root for them when I'm not rooting for my #1 team, da Southsidaz.

longshot7
01-14-2004, 05:25 PM
btw, I still have my license plate frames & I wear my Sox cap (formerly belonging to Jamie Navarro) EVERYWHERE.

Hangar18
01-14-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
btw, I still have my license plate frames & I wear my Sox cap (formerly belonging to Jamie Navarro) EVERYWHERE.

You probably knew this, but theres a pic of us with your Illinois Plates and Sox Plate Covers in the Gallery .......Looks pretty
cool with Dodger Stadium and the Palm Trees in the background

Rex Hudler
01-14-2004, 11:46 PM
How did he think Hundley could even come close to Karros/Grud's #'s?

Hundley was never slated to "come close" to Karros/Grudz numbers. However, if things would have gone right, the combination of Hundley/McGriff/Thurston sure could have worked out.

In 2002, McGriff hit .273 with 30 HR and 103 RBI. They guy, even though he was declining some, averaged about 150 games a season and had NEVER been on the DL in his career. McGriff even had more walks in 2002 than both Grudz and Karros combined.

Grudz and Karros combined hit .271 with 22 HR and 123 RBI. If McGriff has a typical season for him, Thurston doesn't flop and Hundley gives you ANYTHING off the bench, the total is better than what you would have expected out of Grudz/Karros.

Evans took a chance on Hundley. Supposedly some of his personal problems were behind him. Obviously that didn't work out, but based on how that deal was intended to work out, and most people thought Thurston was ready and Karros was in decline, it actually could have turned out to be a good deal.

Hindsight is 20/20, my friend.

JDP
01-14-2004, 11:49 PM
If the Dodger fans are complaining KW is asking too much, why not take out Perez and just ask for Jackson/Miller, Mota, and a top hitting prospect?

Rex Hudler
01-14-2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by JDP
If the Dodger fans are complaining KW is asking too much, why not take out Perez and just ask for Jackson/Miller, Mota, and a top hitting prospect?

No one knows exactly what is going on there. It has been widely reported who the Sox are asking for, but no one knows for sure if that is the exact offer or if it is a hodgepodge of several offers made over the last few months. And no one knows exactly what it hanging up the deal.

Is it Jackson or Miller? Is it Mota as some have reported? Is it merely the total number of players? Are the Dodgers hesitant to give up Perez since they got rid of Brown?

There are too many different things been written and discussed to know what is exactly true.

longshot7
01-15-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Hindsight is 20/20, my friend.

True dat.

BUT... Hundley was goddawful w/ the Dodgers in his first stint - he showed nothing w/ the Cubs to think he had pulled out of his 4-season slump. The move was mostly a salary dump - but Karros was hurt most of 2001 - no one who watched him that year thought he wasn't. Grud, defensive-liability tho he might be -was definitely better offensively at 2. If Thurston had hit, then maybe you make the trade in spring training - or have him force Grud to sit. But Evans was so determined to cut payroll to sign a hitter - but all the hitters he has signed throughout his tenure (guess he learned this from the Sox) were retreads that he hoped would work. why not sign a proven hitter? You don't think the Dodgers could've have ARod if they wanted - 25mil a year is nothing to NewsCorp. They could've had Brian Giles - he wanted to come to LA - but Evans doesn't make the moves. It should've been no surprise that McGriff flopped - he's ancient & he's no Palmeiro. The risks he takes are bad risks - with the Dodgers payroll - these mistakes are unforgivable.

btw - I believe that Evans is willing to trade Miller - but not Jackson - he's the real deal - I saw him pitch last year. It's probably Perez/Mota/Miller/prospect for Maggs. Why not drop the prospect? Evans is so dumb that KW is asking for the farm in hopes of fleecing him. He probably will.

lowesox
01-15-2004, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by JDP
If the Dodger fans are complaining KW is asking too much, why not take out Perez and just ask for Jackson/Miller, Mota, and a top hitting prospect?

I think LA wants to get rid of Perez. Although, maybe Kenny shouldn't be asking for a top hitting prospect. I'd love to have Mota and Jackson next year - then use the extra money to fill some holes. That would make us contenders.

longshot7
01-15-2004, 03:25 AM
also, there aren't any top hitting prospects in the dodgers' system - excpet for these pitchers, it's really pretty bare.

JDP
01-15-2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
also, there aren't any top hitting prospects in the dodgers' system - excpet for these pitchers, it's really pretty bare.

I was thinking along the lines of still being Thurston, or perhaps taking a gamble on Chen.

hold2dibber
01-15-2004, 08:08 AM
Can anyone give some more detailed info about Miller and Jackson? For example, lefty/righty, how close to majors, strengths, weaknesses, stats, when drafted and from where, etc.?