PDA

View Full Version : The Future- who is untouchable for you?


OG4LIFE
07-16-2004, 09:19 AM
its july, the trade deadling is approaching, and we're in first place.

the question for the sox, and every contending team is whether or not "the future" of the franchise is worth taking a shot at the world series.

One of the best comments ive heard from john kruk on baseball tonight was regarding the run his phillies team made towards the world series (and lost), and management didnt want to trade "the future" of the franchise for a few key guys.

"As it turns out, our future was that year." - John Kruk

for you guys, which parts of "our future" are you unwilling to part with, for a shot at the world series?


theres obviously a reasonable balance here, ie we'd probably be a better team if we had RJohnson instead of buerhle in our rotation, but that would be a pretty unreasonable mortgage (unless there are some all-or-nothing folks out there)....
your thoughts?

bennyw41
07-16-2004, 09:35 AM
No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE.

SoxxoS
07-16-2004, 09:39 AM
No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE.
I agree, but nothing is a guarantee. I just don't want to deal Anderson or Sweeney. They can have everyone else.

HomerCoach
07-16-2004, 09:43 AM
Buehrle, Olivo, Reed, Sweeney

Maximo
07-16-2004, 09:52 AM
Daryl Boston, Kurt Brown, Eddie Pearson, Scott Ruffcorn and Mike Caruso.

Just give these youngsters a little more time..........

IlliniSox
07-16-2004, 10:27 AM
Daryl Boston, Kurt Brown, Eddie Pearson, Scott Ruffcorn and Mike Caruso.

Just give these youngsters a little more time..........HaHaHa!

Don't forget Jon Rauch and Lorenzo Barecelo! The 2000's belong to the Sox!

fledgedrallycap
07-16-2004, 10:33 AM
No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE.
Can't argue with that one.

Most likely, KW will not part with Freddie, Buerle, Marte, and Carlos unless something UNBELIEVABLE was offered.

HebrewHammer
07-16-2004, 10:36 AM
I'd be willing to part with everyone except Rodney Bolton and Scott Ruffcorn, those guys are our future

ma_deuce
07-16-2004, 10:37 AM
No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE.
Amen to that, brother.

Deuce

mdep524
07-16-2004, 10:38 AM
Can't argue with that one.

Most likely, KW will not part with Freddie, Buerle, Marte, and Carlos unless something UNBELIEVABLE was offered.
Whoa whoa... hold off on Carlos. I would trade him in A SECOND for the right deal. Buehrle, Freddie, Anderson, Sweeney... that's about all I would say is untouchable. Maybe Crede.

Considering the Sox luck with young, highly-touted pitchers, I would consider trading Kris Honel for a big time SP while his value is high (his injury puts a crimp in that plan though).

The Tom
07-16-2004, 10:38 AM
As far as prospects go, I'd try to keep Anderson, Sweeney, B Mac, and Gio. They SHOULD trade the rest of them and start over. Whatever it takes though. I've always wanted to have a Big Unit....

fledgedrallycap
07-16-2004, 10:58 AM
Whoa whoa... hold off on Carlos. I would trade him in A SECOND for the right deal. Buehrle, Freddie, Anderson, Sweeney... that's about all I would say is untouchable. Maybe Crede.

Considering the Sox luck with young, highly-touted pitchers, I would consider trading Kris Honel for a big time SP while his value is high (his injury puts a crimp in that plan though).
I'm not saying what I think, just what KW is thinking. He absolutely love Carlos and he doesn't make the kind of money that straps your team.

OurBitchinMinny
07-16-2004, 11:14 AM
Aaron Rowand and Timo Perez

Tmar281
07-16-2004, 11:17 AM
I've always wanted to have a Big Unit....we already have the bigger unit:D:

sox_fan_forever
07-16-2004, 11:18 AM
I wouldn't want to trade Buehrle. Seriously, if it means a World Series how can anyone be untouchable?

OurBitchinMinny
07-16-2004, 11:19 AM
No one on this team should be untouchable. If the right deal is in place, pull the trigger. Crappy teams worry about the future. Good teams go for the jugular now

jabrch
07-16-2004, 11:23 AM
The only people untouchable are the guys we just drafted - since we cant trade them for about a year. Past that - I can't think of anyone who is not available in the right deal.

jeremyb1
07-16-2004, 03:31 PM
No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE.

Some of you guys are going to make a ton of money in Vegas now that you know we're going to the Series since we acquired Garcia and that we're going to win the World Series with another major acquisition.

HebrewHammer
07-16-2004, 03:39 PM
Some of you guys are going to make a ton of money in Vegas now that you know we're going to the Series since we acquired Garcia and that we're going to win the World Series with another major acquisition.First you assume that Shingo finds his intro racist and now you assume that everyone is guarunteeing a Sox World Series. The post you quoted NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT GUARANTEEING A WORLD SERIES, just that we should do whatever possible to get there.


:dtroll: :dtroll: :dtroll:

SSN721
07-16-2004, 03:45 PM
Some of you guys are going to make a ton of money in Vegas now that you know we're going to the Series since we acquired Garcia and that we're going to win the World Series with another major acquisition.

I think it would be about as good a shot as betting on any of the "untouchable" minor leaguers to turn into great players that some here are tearing other people apart for for wanting to trade them to greatly increase the odds of the Sox making it to the World Series. Better them then our proven major league players. I will take that risk. I obtaining RJ without losing anyone in our ML lineup and rotation makes us a strong WS candidate.

thepaulbowski
07-16-2004, 03:52 PM
Some of you guys are going to make a ton of money in Vegas now that you know we're going to the Series since we acquired Garcia and that we're going to win the World Series with another major acquisition.
I must have missed the post were it was said the Sox are going to the World Series because the Sox acquired Garcia. :dunno:

Basten
07-16-2004, 04:07 PM
Some of you guys are going to make a ton of money in Vegas now that you know we're going to the Series since we acquired Garcia and that we're going to win the World Series with another major acquisition.Let's put it this way: with Garcia and Johnson, Sox have as good a chance to win the series as ANYBODY in 2004 and 2005.

Without them? See Twins of 2003.

lowesox
07-16-2004, 04:10 PM
After giving up what we did for Garcia, nobody in our system should be untouchable. BUT, if we ante up again for the big unit, we'd better make sure we get a stud setup man and a killer lead off guy. Because if you're going to put all your eggs in one basket, you better make sure none of them are cracked.

soxfan26
07-16-2004, 04:11 PM
No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE.
Well Said

bennyw41
07-16-2004, 04:30 PM
Some of you guys are going to make a ton of money in Vegas now that you know we're going to the Series since we acquired Garcia and that we're going to win the World Series with another major acquisition.Are you in the wrong forum? Wrong thread? What's your problem. Read what I wrote on the damn board. :angry: I said that noone is untouchable if it means trading for a world series. When did I say that we did that? I didn't say that trading anyone would equal a world series. I didn't think I had to clarify but here, if you asked me to trade someone for the world series, I'd do it, but since this is not even possible to do, so the idea is flawed, and you sir are a dirty :dtroll:


Can you or anyone give me a possible explaination of any answer other than No one? I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME WITH AN ANSWER TO THIS THREAD'S STUPID QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER OTHER THAN NO ONE

JRIG
07-16-2004, 04:39 PM
Are you in the wrong forum? Wrong thread? What's your problem. Read what I wrote on the damn board. :angry: I said that noone is untouchable if it means trading for a world series. When did I say that we did that? I didn't say that trading anyone would equal a world series. I didn't think I had to clarify but here, if you asked me to trade someone for the world series, I'd do it, but since this is not even possible to do, so the idea is flawed, and you sir are a dirty :dtroll:


Can you or anyone give me a possible explaination of any answer other than No one? I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME WITH AN ANSWER TO THIS THREAD'S STUPID QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER OTHER THAN NO ONE
I'm just glad you weren't the GM back in 1990, when "going for it" and "being aggressive" would have meant giving up our top prospect...Frank Thomas.

bennyw41
07-16-2004, 04:49 PM
I'm just glad you weren't the GM back in 1990, when "going for it" and "being aggressive" would have meant giving up our top prospect...Frank Thomas.
So you're saying that in 1990 if someone offered you the option of Watching Frank Thomas play ringless for 14 years, or having a World Series ring in 1991, you'd pick the former?

That's stupid.

JRIG
07-16-2004, 05:03 PM
So you're saying that in 1990 if someone offered you the option of Watching Frank Thomas play ringless for 14 years, or having a World Series ring in 1991, you'd pick the former?

That's stupid.
As far as I know, the question is, "which parts of "our future" are you unwilling to part with, for a shot at the world series?"

You said, "No one is untouchable if it means a world series. NO ONE."

Obviously no trade guarantees a World Series. So by answering the question that way, you're implying that anyone could be sacrificed if it means a shot at the series.

Basically you're saying regardless of the circumstances, you WOULD have traded Frank in 1990 to make a run that season because no prospect is untouchable.

That's stupid.

nasox
07-16-2004, 05:07 PM
So you're saying that in 1990 if someone offered you the option of Watching Frank Thomas play ringless for 14 years, or having a World Series ring in 1991, you'd pick the former?

That's stupid.
Yes, you would stupid if you picked the former. BUT, how can you say that if we traded Frank then, we would win the 91 WS? You can't guarantee a win no matter what. Steinbrenner can't with all of the money he spends, so what makes you think we can?

Even if we trade for RJ, we still won't be guaranteed a WS win. Our CHANCES of makeing the WS would be better with RJ, but we won't be guaranteed a win.

bennyw41
07-16-2004, 05:22 PM
Yes, you would stupid if you picked the former. BUT, how can you say that if we traded Frank then, we would win the 91 WS? You can't guarantee a win no matter what. Steinbrenner can't with all of the money he spends, so what makes you think we can?

Even if we trade for RJ, we still won't be guaranteed a WS win. Our CHANCES of makeing the WS would be better with RJ, but we won't be guaranteed a win.
Thats what i'm saying, jeez... I'm saying this is a stupid thread. GRRRR

bigfoot
07-16-2004, 06:53 PM
I had a year 2000 Who's Who in Baseball fall on my head, the other day. On the back cover was a Pic of the 1999 WS Champ Yankees. There are only 5 players from that team left on the Yanks today. Jeter, BWilliams, M Rivera, Posada, & el Duque(1999 was his 2nd year). Not many sacred cows in NY. If they don't produce, they go, for better talent! Not many of them are still in MLB. Spencer, Clemens, Petitte, Ledee, Mendoza(DL), Girardi. Only 11 of 25 still in the Bigs after 5 years and Clemens, Girardi, el Duque and Mendoza might all be gone next year.

~The point, at long last, DO
IT NOW! Win a W/S and watch the future value of your players go way up, when making trades. Everybody wants that 'special' something that they think goes along with the players that won the W/S. We all think that way. Just look at how we all want the Big Unit to come to the Southside. If he hadn't won a W/S, would that be the case? Or would he be thought of as Nolan Ryan? Nobody was selling the ranch to get him, late in his career. If he'd have been on a W/S winner, he would have brought big bucks in a trade.

StillMissOzzie
07-16-2004, 07:24 PM
IF (and that is a very big IF) it guaranteed a WS victory, I would agree that NO ONE is untouchable. Now all we have to do is find that other GM that agrees that if the Sox don't win it all, the trade is null and void and un-done.


SMO
:gulp:

jeremyb1
07-16-2004, 07:34 PM
First you assume that Shingo finds his intro racist and now you assume that everyone is guarunteeing a Sox World Series. The post you quoted NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT GUARANTEEING A WORLD SERIES, just that we should do whatever possible to get there.


:dtroll: :dtroll: :dtroll:

Yeah I'm the troll with 2,9000 posts more than you. If you read any of my posts the one thing I won't accept is people twisting my words around. You can make as many stupid arguments as you want and I'll let it slide but don't make stupid arguments in my name that are blatant falsehoods. In the Shingo thread I argued that we have no knowledge of his thoughts on the gong (which is the EXACT OPPOSITE if arguing that he finds it racist or that he loves it or anything else along those lines). The same stupid, ridiculous, unfair assumption you made in this thread was made in that thread and I rather forecfully clarified my earlier posts for those with difficulty with reading comprehension. If you're still having trouble after this post maybe you want to go back and actually read my posts in that thread before you decide to completely mischaracterize them.

As for the post I was replying to in THIS THREAD, it read "No player is untouchable if it means a world series." Inseperable from that statement is the assumption of a large degree of knowledge of what players will mean a world series. Otherwise what is the point of the statement? If no player is untouchable if it leads to a world series yet we don't know which players mean a world series then some players would be untouchable because we'd never be able to make a trade we knew would win a Series. The idea that you can tell which players will allow a team to win a World Series is what I was critiquing in that post.

jeremyb1
07-16-2004, 07:46 PM
I think it would be about as good a shot as betting on any of the "untouchable" minor leaguers to turn into great players that some here are tearing other people apart for for wanting to trade them to greatly increase the odds of the Sox making it to the World Series. Better them then our proven major league players. I will take that risk. I obtaining RJ without losing anyone in our ML lineup and rotation makes us a strong WS candidate.

First of all the idea of an untouchable player is ridiculous. Let's get that out of the way. There can only be one most valuable commodity in the game and if other GMs are smart every other player would be dealt for that one guy.

As I've explained before there's no move to guarantee you a World Series title. There's no move or set of moves to give you a better than 50% chance. So if you look at it like flipping a coin, the best way to get heads will be to flip as many times a possible. I think if we acquire RJ that improves our chances a lot but they're still not high because with 8 teams and short series there's tons of variability and no one's chance is high. It may not make a difference at this point though because our efforts of building a perennial contender in the future have already dimished since we lost two of our best 4 or 5 building blocks in the Garcia trade.

jeremyb1
07-16-2004, 07:50 PM
Are you in the wrong forum? Wrong thread? What's your problem. Read what I wrote on the damn board. :angry: I said that noone is untouchable if it means trading for a world series. When did I say that we did that? I didn't say that trading anyone would equal a world series. I didn't think I had to clarify but here, if you asked me to trade someone for the world series, I'd do it, but since this is not even possible to do, so the idea is flawed, and you sir are a dirty :dtroll:


Can you or anyone give me a possible explaination of any answer other than No one? I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME WITH AN ANSWER TO THIS THREAD'S STUPID QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER OTHER THAN NO ONE

As I posted your statement is contingent upon the concept that one can tell which moves will win a World Series and I think that's utterly ridiculous. With the exception of some intentional hyperbole directed towards certain posters adamant of the Garcia deal in other threads which was not directed towards you the rest of my post has everything to do with the words you said in your post.

Basten
07-16-2004, 08:03 PM
Since there is no such thing as a "guarantee" when it comes to WS, I guess this thread should cease to exist.

However, we have to remember that making it to ALCS and some noise therein would be a huge success by this franchise's standards. Imagine how much money would be made from now until mid-October - that could only translate into higher payrolls and a more magnanimous JR beyond 2004.....Yep, these things are interconnected/dependent; going for it now may mean going for it in the next 5-7 years, who's to say.

That said, young Pedro, Manny, Pujols, A-Rod, Prior, Wood - the guys with overwhelming talent would be untouchable. IMO, Brian Anderson and Jon Rauch do not possess that kind of ability/upside. Neither does Honel or even, dare I say it, Ryan Sweeney. I just do not see anyone untouchable in this farm system - and that included Reed-meister.

jeremyb1
07-16-2004, 08:46 PM
Since there is no such thing as a "guarantee" when it comes to WS, I guess this thread should cease to exist.

Well I didn't argue with the thread because the exact wording is who woul you trade "for a shot at the World Series". It seems to admit that there's a fair amount of uncertainty there.

HebrewHammer
07-16-2004, 10:57 PM
Yeah I'm the troll with 2,9000 posts more than you. If you read any of my posts the one thing I won't accept is people twisting my words around. You can make as many stupid arguments as you want and I'll let it slide but don't make stupid arguments in my name that are blatant falsehoods. In the Shingo thread I argued that we have no knowledge of his thoughts on the gong (which is the EXACT OPPOSITE if arguing that he finds it racist or that he loves it or anything else along those lines). The same stupid, ridiculous, unfair assumption you made in this thread was made in that thread and I rather forecfully clarified my earlier posts for those with difficulty with reading comprehension. If you're still having trouble after this post maybe you want to go back and actually read my posts in that thread before you decide to completely mischaracterize them.

As for the post I was replying to in THIS THREAD, it read "No player is untouchable if it means a world series." Inseperable from that statement is the assumption of a large degree of knowledge of what players will mean a world series. Otherwise what is the point of the statement? If no player is untouchable if it leads to a world series yet we don't know which players mean a world series then some players would be untouchable because we'd never be able to make a trade we knew would win a Series. The idea that you can tell which players will allow a team to win a World Series is what I was critiquing in that post.First off I don't care what your post total is. Wow 2900+ posts, you sure showed me, please stop, no, no more, your post total is KILLING ME! Second I never twisted your words, you did in fact post that you felt that the gong was racist and then hypothesized that Shingo wouldn't feel comfortable voicing his opinion if he felt the gong was racist.

Your ability to spin your own statements is almost Kiley-esque. I find your arguments to be circular and longwinded, please think before you post, thank you.

:dtroll:

jeremyb1
07-17-2004, 01:21 AM
First off I don't care what your post total is. Wow 2900+ posts, you sure showed me, please stop, no, no more, your post total is KILLING ME!

Well the reason I said that is because you called me a troll. On the internet I've always seen the term troll used to refer to a poster that drops in on an established message board and immediately attempts to agitate the posters and then quickly departs. Seeing as how I've been here for quite a while now and I have quite a bit of posts I fail to see how I'm merely popping in to annoy people. I think the fact that I spend a lot of time posting here indicates that I do so because I'm serious about the team and the game of baseball.

Second I never twisted your words, you did in fact post that you felt that the gong was racist and then hypothesized that Shingo wouldn't feel comfortable voicing his opinion if he felt the gong was racist.

First of all, you can search for "racist", "gong", and my user name, I don't think you'll find any posts. I said that I personally found it offensive but at no point did I ever use the term racist. More importantly here's what you said in your previous post "First you assume that Shingo finds his intro racist". Again, saying that I personally find the gong offensive and that we do not know Shingo's stance is not the same as assuming Shingo does find the intro to be offensive. As I pointed out in my last post saying that we don't know how a person feels about a subject and assuming that person holds a certain viewpoint on a subject are more or less complete opposites. So you really couldn't have been more wrong in your original interpretation of my comments on the gong. If you misrepresented my words in that thread and my argument then I dont' see how you could've done anything other than twist my words. You're clearly already backing down from your original statement by now claiming that I only "hypothesized Shingo wouldn't feel comfortable voicing his opinion." I only raised that as a possibility not necessarily a liklihood. However, claiming he woudln't voice his opinion and arguing that he was offended are two different things.

Your ability to spin your own statements is almost Kiley-esque. I find your arguments to be circular and longwinded, please think before you post, thank you.

As I've challenged others before, if my logic is faulty and circular demonstrate how, don't just level accusations. I've certainly demonstrated flaws in your reasoning with specific examples. If my arguments are circular say "You claim that A leads to B which leads back to A, hence your logic is circular". When you make the accusation without any explanation why, it seems like you're just trying to attack me.

Frankfan4life
07-17-2004, 12:41 PM
KW please keep you mitts off of Frank, Ordonez, Buerhlre, Valentin, Konerko, Shingo, Marte and Garland.

I can't subscribe to getting rid of everybody just to win a World Series, there are some players on this team who I think have earned the chance to be part of a White Sox WS celebration and I don't think it would give me as much joy to see a bunch of strangers celebrating a White Sox WS win. Of course I wouldn't have any way of knowing that for sure.