PDA

View Full Version : Arizona wants


Soxfest
07-17-2004, 11:32 AM
A.Rowand and J. Garland for starters the Daily Southtown reports.

I trade those 2 guys in a second, we would not miss either one of those guys. AR had 2 good months in 2 years and JG please he is a career 12-12 5.00 plus era pitcher all over him. If that and a couple of mid level prospects is all they want spin the wheel make the deal. Lets be progressive for once.

SEALgep
07-17-2004, 11:35 AM
No thanks.

Blueprint1
07-17-2004, 11:39 AM
No way should we let Garland go.

harwar
07-17-2004, 11:39 AM
I wonder how many more(ready to play now)players they want.
With Big Frank down,more than likely for the season,i think we need to look toward houston maybe and see if we can lure beltran here.
He would be very costly but he will help us right now.
As for next year,heaven help us then.

voodoochile
07-17-2004, 11:41 AM
I wonder if they would take Schoeneweiss instead...

voodoochile
07-17-2004, 11:43 AM
I wonder how many more(ready to play now)players they want.
With Big Frank down,more than likely for the season,i think we need to look toward houston maybe and see if we can lure beltran here.
He would be very costly but he will help us right now.
As for next year,heaven help us then.
Why? Who has been traded that would definitely be on the team next year? Heck, right now they have Garcia, Buehrle, Maggs, Lee, Frank, Konehead all under contract. That's not a bad core to start a season with.

ChiSoxTony
07-17-2004, 11:44 AM
I would make this trade in a heartbeat....John Garland is a nice pitcher, but he does not have the head to help us go to the WS this year. You cant walk three guys in a row in the playoffs you will be history. Rowand is a nice player, but if I could use him to get RJ, I would do it in a minute. I think you may be able to put a package together that brings Finley over in the trade with RJ. We would then have centerfield help along with pitching.

Mickster
07-17-2004, 11:46 AM
Do you have a link? The Arizona Republic's most recent article (last night) now disputes that RJ even gave a list of teams he would be willing to be traded to. You can find the article HERE (http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/0717johnson0717.html).

harwar
07-17-2004, 11:47 AM
Why? Who has been traded that would definitely be on the team next year? Heck, right now they have Garcia, Buehrle, Maggs, Lee, Frank, Konehead all under contract. That's not a bad core to start a season with.It all seems so far away right now.But i'm thinking that we wouldn't keep Beltran or Maggs and that Big Frank(my favorite player btw)has to stop being the force he is right now.Maybe that time is next year.

Soxfest
07-17-2004, 11:48 AM
No way should we let Garland go.
Did I miss the season JG did anything, he has not won anything or improved since day one. JG the Enigma

Soxfest
07-17-2004, 11:51 AM
Do you have a link? The Arizona Republic's most recent article (last night) now disputes that RJ even gave a list of teams he would be willing to be traded to. You can find the article HERE (http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/0717johnson0717.html).
I said it was in Daily Southtown.:smile:

Mickster
07-17-2004, 11:52 AM
I said it was in Daily Southtown.:smile:
You edited your post at 10:44. Your initial post said Arizona Republic......

voodoochile
07-17-2004, 11:53 AM
It all seems so far away right now.But i'm thinking that we wouldn't keep Beltran or Maggs and that Big Frank(my favorite player btw)has to stop being the force he is right now.Maybe that time is next year.
Whoops, I forgot that Maggs isn't signed for next year. Who knows about Frank, but if he is healthy, he should have a fine season. It's a damned shame about the stress fracture. Those are tough injuries. Big guy like that may need more than just rest and casts. They give gymnists a metal rod they insert in the bone to give it more strength. They did the same thing to Eldred, but that was the first time they tried it on an arm - the leg surgery is old hat. Depends on how it heals and what Frank wants. Good news from a "next year" perspective is that Frank will almost definitely take his option now. He cannot afford to take a chance on free agency. That means he will finish his contract here, because there is no way he tears up the 4th year of the deal which pays him $10M and guarantees him $13.5.

SoxxoS
07-17-2004, 11:55 AM
If you don't want to trade a fourth outfielder (who is a nice player, and I like alot, BTW) and Jon (doesn't have the mental game down, and when you have a chance for Randy Johnson, you take the chance that he will never) Garland, that is just ludacris.

What the hell are we waiting for? Waiting for "next year" when Jon Garland is going to turn into Kevin Brown and lead us to the promise land like Loiaza did last year.

If true, THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NO-BRAINER.

Mickster
07-17-2004, 11:57 AM
What the hell are we waiting for? Waiting for "next year" when Jon Garland is going to turn into Kevin Brown and lead us to the promise land like Loiaza did last year.
Or.......wait until the end of the 2005 season when Garland walks?

Soxfest
07-17-2004, 11:59 AM
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/gifs/sports2.jpg

Sox Notebook



Sox know deal for Johnson is a long shot



Saturday, July 17, 2004









By Joe Cowley
Staff writer OAKLAND Until Paul Konerko actually sees Randy Johnson walk into the clubhouse and put on a White Sox uniform, the first baseman isn't going to get caught up in all the talk and speculation surrounding the Arizona Diamondbacks' ace pitcher.

"A couple of weeks ago, I would have said, 'New York, Boston, if they're in on it, forget it,' " Konerko said Friday. "But they were also in on Freddy (Garcia), too. We proved that we can step in and get guys as well.

"But Randy Johnson ... until he walks in the door, I'm not going to believe it."

Konerko was still finding it difficult to believe that Johnson reportedly told the Diamondbacks on Thursday that the Sox were one of the teams he would waive his no-trade clause for if a deal were to be made.

The other five teams were the Cubs, the Yankees, Boston, St. Louis and Anaheim. And Konerko might be right to doubt the legitimacy of the reports. Johnson's agent, Barry Meister, denied Friday that any such list of teams exists. Sox general manager Ken Williams had inquired about Johnson several times this season, and the Diamondbacks had told him the veteran pitcher wasn't available. If that has changed, the question for the Sox becomes: At what price would Johnson be available? Arizona reportedly would want a package including the likes of Aaron Rowand and Jon Garland, for starters.

pearso66
07-17-2004, 11:59 AM
If it was just Rowand and Garland, ok, but that said for starters. Which means they want MORE than Rowand and Garland. No dice

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:02 PM
If it was just Rowand and Garland, ok, but that said for starters. Which means they want MORE than Rowand and Garland. No diceSo you don't want to throw in a few more prospects, say 3 of them to get RJ and Finley?

ChiSoxTony
07-17-2004, 12:05 PM
Have any of our prospects impressed you? Diaz, Rauch, Borchard, Munoz, Cotts.. I think they are are garbage, and if you could trade them to get a legitimate shot at the WS, BYE BYE!!!!

pearso66
07-17-2004, 12:11 PM
So you don't want to throw in a few more prospects, say 3 of them to get RJ and Finley?
Who said Finley was in the deal? And btw, I never really cared to get Finley, he is 39 and having a career year. I don't see it holding up in the 2nd half. And no, If it was just RJ, there is no way I trade Garland, Rowand and 3 prospects, who will probably have to be top prospects.

SEALgep
07-17-2004, 12:12 PM
If you don't want to trade a fourth outfielder (who is a nice player, and I like alot, BTW) and Jon (doesn't have the mental game down, and when you have a chance for Randy Johnson, you take the chance that he will never) Garland, that is just ludacris.

What the hell are we waiting for? Waiting for "next year" when Jon Garland is going to turn into Kevin Brown and lead us to the promise land like Loiaza did last year.

If true, THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NO-BRAINER. It's not like you can just disregard the contract. $16 million is a lot of money for next year, and will limit us in a lot of ways. You can surely say goodbye to Maggs. RJ is great, but it's not as simple as to say do it at any cost.

SSN721
07-17-2004, 12:12 PM
I still say no to Garland, I personally feel he has too much value to this team and in the future to lose him. I still think he has a chance to prosper, he is young enough to work through the fe problems he has now. He has the potential to be brilliant and right now is solid enough in my eyes to be at least a #4. We need him this year. We need him to even get to the playoffs, trading away our starting pitching is the last thing we need to do right now even for an upgrade. ANd right now I am more worried about offense. I think we should be focusing more on Beltran or Kendall (or both). to improve our seemingly weakening lineup. I would hate to see any of our ML pitching get traded except form maybe Schoney and Cotts if the deal is right. I still think many here are undervaluing Garland and letting the few poor starts he has had far outweigh the many good to brilliant starts he has given us this year.

pearso66
07-17-2004, 12:12 PM
Have any of our prospects impressed you? Diaz, Rauch, Borchard, Munoz, Cotts.. I think they are are garbage, and if you could trade them to get a legitimate shot at the WS, BYE BYE!!!!
I've already stated I have no problem trading any of those guys. Not all of them, but they can have a deal with 3 of them, but I don't want to give up Garland. You can't give up a peice of the puzzle if you are tryign to win a WS.

SEALgep
07-17-2004, 12:13 PM
So you don't want to throw in a few more prospects, say 3 of them to get RJ and Finley?No, because the prospects they'll want are going to be the best in the system. Would I trade Sweeney or Anderson in addition to Garland and Rowand? No way.

ChiSoxTony
07-17-2004, 12:14 PM
Keep this in mind. If you dont win the WS this year, I'm sure you could find a suitor for RJ in the offseason, and get back better prospects and players that you gave up.

pearso66
07-17-2004, 12:20 PM
Keep this in mind. If you dont win the WS this year, I'm sure you could find a suitor for RJ in the offseason, and get back better prospects and players that you gave up.
I don't know if you could get better prospects for Johnson after the season. What if he doesnt want to waive his no trade clause? What if he gets hurt? He will be 42 next year. It's not like he's in the prime of his career. If we are shopping him, people will know, and we'll probably get nothing near waht we gave up.

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:26 PM
Folks, Garland will not ber here after next season. Plain and simple. We may never see the BEST that Garland has to offer in his career with the White Sox.

pearso66
07-17-2004, 12:34 PM
Folks, Garland will not ber here after next season. Plain and simple. We may never see the BEST that Garland has to offer in his career with the White Sox.
He won't be here after next season? Wow you can see the future? In that case, what are the lotto numbers? I could always use some extra cash.

:cleo

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:35 PM
No, because the prospects they'll want are going to be the best in the system. Would I trade Sweeney or Anderson in addition to Garland and Rowand? No way.
SEAL,

Do you want me to make a list of the "cant-miss" prospects that were in our system over the last 10 years that fizzled and never made it to the bigs?

A prospect is just that, a prospect. Proven MLB tallent is a whole different story.

Jerome
07-17-2004, 12:37 PM
I would do this trade (even though I like Rowand) but it still leaves us with kind of a problem- Shoenwies still has to start. Our rotation would be probably the best in baseball with RJ, Freddy, Buhrle, Loaiza, and Garland as #5. I don't trust Shoney.

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:38 PM
He won't be here after next season? Wow you can see the future? In that case, what are the lotto numbers? I could always use some extra cash.

:cleo
Do you honestly feel that he'll stay in Chicago when all of his family and friends are in Southern Cal? Do you feel that we would be able to offer him more than say, the up-and-coming Padres? Doubt it. Just my opinion, though. And why would we?

Terminated
07-17-2004, 12:40 PM
It be great if Arizona were to be interested with Schoeneweis, but who wants him?

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:42 PM
I would do this trade (even though I like Rowand) but it still leaves us with kind of a problem- Shoenwies still has to start. Our rotation would be probably the best in baseball with RJ, Freddy, Buhrle, Loaiza, and Garland as #5. I don't trust Shoney.
Scott as a #5 is still better than the revolving door that we've had in that spot for the last 3-4 years IMHO.

SoxxoS
07-17-2004, 12:42 PM
Do you honestly feel that he'll stay in Chicago when all of his family and friends are in Southern Cal? Do you feel that we would be able to offer him more than say, the up-and-coming Padres? Doubt it. Just my opinion, though. And why would we?
Except for Clemens, that being close to home crap is overrated. These guys have 4, 5 or 6 months to spend with their families, which is more than the traditional working man. Garland is single and I am sure he is enjoying single life as a good looking 24 year old millionaire in Chicago.

SoxxoS
07-17-2004, 12:43 PM
It's not like you can just disregard the contract. $16 million is a lot of money for next year, and will limit us in a lot of ways. You can surely say goodbye to Maggs. RJ is great, but it's not as simple as to say do it at any cost.
Worry about next year and the contract NEXT YEAR. You don't think there will be someone willing to take that contract off our hands if WE aren't in the pennant race next year?

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:46 PM
Except for Clemens, that being close to home crap is overrated. These guys have 4, 5 or 6 months to spend with their families, which is more than the traditional working man. Garland is single and I am sure he is enjoying single life as a good looking 24 year old millionaire in Chicago.
Yep, especially playing for City in which his team is second-fiddle where he can walk around the city and nobody knows who the hell he is. How many free agents are dying to play for the Sox? Unless the team does something in the near future it will be the same old ****!

Mickster
07-17-2004, 12:47 PM
It's not like you can just disregard the contract. $16 million is a lot of money for next year, and will limit us in a lot of ways. You can surely say goodbye to Maggs. RJ is great, but it's not as simple as to say do it at any cost.
It has been posted several times that he is only due approx. $10M next year with the rest being deferred. All of the $16M does not count towards next year's salary "cap".

SEALgep
07-17-2004, 12:48 PM
Worry about next year and the contract NEXT YEAR. You don't think there will be someone willing to take that contract off our hands if WE aren't in the pennant race next year?Next year is next year, but you have to consider moves that are going to hamper you're team's payroll in a major way. That and all the people we would have to give up. You give up JG, Rowand, and three top prospects for a $16 million contract for just the rest of this year, and frankly we would have to be considered up there with the Sexson deal.

bigfoot
07-17-2004, 12:51 PM
By Joe Cowley"...

"But Randy Johnson ... until he walks in the door, I'm not going to believe it." .....
And Konerko might be right to doubt the legitimacy of the reports. Johnson's agent, Barry Meister, denied .....
~At what price would Johnson be available?
~ Arizona reportedly would want a package including the likes of Aaron Rowand and Jon Garland, for starters.[/QUOTE]
I believe the first line. Never believe what an agent says. Always question a reporter that asks a question of himself, and then reports the answer without citing a source.
~This is classic Cowley, nothing to say, but column inches to fill.
~Maybe he call an agent, Garland's would be the best source of misinformation. JG's agent would be happy to have his client be the major part of a trade for RJ, going into a F/A year. Being worth the lion's share of a trade for HOF pitcher, is bound to boost the asking price for JG enormously! And what agent could resist leaking this info to some writer to splash it in the Chicago market. Show me the money! I bet Cowley gets a nice bottle of scotch out of this one!

Win1ForMe
07-17-2004, 12:55 PM
Losing Rowand isn't a biggie but I'm hoping Garland remains with the Sox. Yes,
he's unbelivably frustrating at times, but as a back of the rotation guy, he's very
solid. And you also have to ask yourself what these other teams would offer in
terms of MLB players. The Yankees can't offer up Contreras anymore, not with
Brown AND Mussina (elbow) on the DL. Red Sox/Angels won't give up anyone
from their pitching staffs, not unless the Diamondbacks want Lowe or Colon.
Cardinals? Maybe Jason Marquis, which I could see as having Arizona's interest.

Still, as someone previously mentioned, losing Garland still means you're running
Schoenweiss out there every 5th start. And that's the real problem.

OEO Magglio
07-17-2004, 03:30 PM
I'd get rid of arow in a second but in no way do I give up JG. Garland has turned into the 3rd starter on this team and he's really starting to pitch well. I know not many of you are concerned about the future and I'm really not that much either right now but I'd like to keep buehrle, freddy and garland together. If they want rowand and throw in cotts or arnie or whatever pitching spects they want then that's fine with me, I just don't want to see Jon go.

Frater Perdurabo
07-17-2004, 03:40 PM
I'd get rid of arow in a second but in no way do I give up JG. Garland has turned into the 3rd starter on this team and he's really starting to pitch well. I know not many of you are concerned about the future and I'm really not that much either right now but I'd like to keep buehrle, freddy and garland together. If they want rowand and throw in cotts or arnie or whatever pitching spects they want then that's fine with me, I just don't want to see Jon go.
I consider Garland an untouchable, along with Buehrle and Garcia. He's young, good yet still improving and inexpensive.

Basten
07-17-2004, 03:42 PM
A.Rowand and J. Garland for starters the Daily Southtown reports.
.
Ok, what does "for starters" part mean exatly?



Does it mean "....plus a coupe of mid-level throw-ins"?

OR

Does it mean "...plus Anderson and Cotts"?



If they can include Finley, give them Rauch and another prospect.

Basten
07-17-2004, 03:44 PM
I wonder if they would take Schoeneweiss instead...
Show of April-May? Probably no.

Show of June-July? Hell ****ing no!


:)

Malgar 12
07-17-2004, 03:55 PM
Did I miss the season JG did anything, he has not won anything or improved since day one. JG the Enigma
He's 24 years old. If you haven't seen improvement then you must not be watching. For starters how about the 1-0 win in Minn. 2 weeks ago?

Basten
07-17-2004, 04:13 PM
He's 24 years old. If you haven't seen improvement then you must not be watching. For starters how about the 1-0 win in Minn. 2 weeks ago?
For one, he is 25, with 5 years of ML experience. He is not some 21yo rookie.

And in Minnesota, he was bailed out by Valentin's run-saving dive as well as Guzman's would-be 2-run hit finding its way into Lee's glove in the 8th. It was a good outing, but that's what mediocre pitchers do -- have good outings and then have no-so-good outings during the course of the season.

Kevin Brown? He had a 97 mph heater, with a great sinker and a nasty breaking ball, to say nothing the future HOF'ers uber-competitiveness. Garland tops out at 93, his sinker is a notch below and breaking ball highly inconsistent. He is also a mental midget.

Clarkdog
07-17-2004, 04:59 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Thomas' injury puts us out of the Randy Johnson sweepstakes. We still need a catcher AND NOW a bat to replace the Hurt. You're not going to get the same kind of numbers with Borchard filling that spot.

I still like the idea of working a deal with the Expos to bring back Jurassic Carl along with Brian Schnieder.

Basten
07-17-2004, 05:07 PM
I still like the idea of working a deal with the Expos to bring back Jurassic Carl along with Brian Schnieder.
Carl.

Everett.

Cannot.

Hit.

Or.

Field.

Or.

Run.

Any.

More.

and.

he.

is.

signed.

beyond.

this.

season.

Clarkdog
07-17-2004, 05:43 PM
Carl.

Everett.

Cannot.

Hit.

Or.

Field.

Or.

Run.

Any.

More.

and.

he.

is.

signed.

beyond.

this.

season.

Taking.

Everett's.

contract.

is.

one.

way.

the.

Sox.

could.

soften.

the.

Expos.

to.

agree.

to.

give.

up.

Schnieder.

And.

Carl.

is.

not.

done.

:wink:

JDP
07-17-2004, 06:16 PM
I've already stated I have no problem trading any of those guys. Not all of them, but they can have a deal with 3 of them, but I don't want to give up Garland. You can't give up a peice of the puzzle if you are tryign to win a WS.

I want no goddamn part of any puzzle that the enigma Garland is a "piece" of. Why is everyone holding JGs hand and refusing to move him as if he were the almighty lord Prior himself? The guy is average at best. He has shown us that from Day 1. If he hadn't been acquired from the Cubs' system, would he be so highly "touted?"

kojak
07-17-2004, 07:39 PM
The bottom line here is that Randy Johnson is going to be winning World Series games this October for SOMEBODY. Are the Sox willing to part with the players to make them that somebody?

However, the bigger issue IMHO is that I don't recall any team in recent memory that has won a World Series without at least one legitimate top-of-the-order player producing consistently. I think we currently have the pitching to get to the post-season, but without OPS and runs scored in the 1 or 2 position of our batting order, we are toast. If we ignore this need and sign RJ, he will be losing some 1-0, 2-1 games...

OEO Magglio
07-17-2004, 07:44 PM
For one, he is 25, with 5 years of ML experience. He is not some 21yo rookie.He's 24.

SoxxoS
07-17-2004, 07:49 PM
Next year is next year, but you have to consider moves that are going to hamper you're team's payroll in a major way. That and all the people we would have to give up. You give up JG, Rowand, and three top prospects for a $16 million contract for just the rest of this year, and frankly we would have to be considered up there with the Sexson deal.
That is next year...worry about it then.

A. Cavatica
07-17-2004, 07:49 PM
...that is just ludacris.
It's your spelling that's ludicrous.

SoxxoS
07-17-2004, 07:54 PM
It's your spelling that's ludicrous.People that think they are the grammar police on message boards,.? with nothing better...;' to do need to get a life.''>.

Or should I have said "People with nothing better to do than be the grammar police on message boards need to get a life."

Seriously. Get a new hobby.

nitetrain8601
07-17-2004, 08:15 PM
I don't want to trade Garland and Rowand for starters. I'm one of those guys who says if you could position yourself for a great WS run, then trade the future, but you can't trade everyone. Right now I would even rather trade Loiaza. Don't forget, Garland also had Jerry Manuel as his manager and he never let Garland develop a mindset. He never gave him an oppurtunity to get out of those tough situations in which he's finally been given the greenlight to get through this year. I also think we need hitting over pitching especially with Frank out. I rather get Beltran. He would flourish here.

Cowch44
07-17-2004, 08:20 PM
It's your spelling that's ludicrous.
He spelled it like this guys "name"

http://tinypic.com/tmo1

Basten
07-17-2004, 08:28 PM
The bottom line here is that Randy Johnson is going to be winning World Series games this October for SOMEBODY. Are the Sox willing to part with the players to make them that somebody?

However, the bigger issue IMHO is that I don't recall any team in recent memory that has won a World Series without at least one legitimate top-of-the-order player producing consistently. I think we currently have the pitching to get to the post-season, but without OPS and runs scored in the 1 or 2 position of our batting order, we are toast. If we ignore this need and sign RJ, he will be losing some 1-0, 2-1 games...
Randy Johnson should be in the White Sox uniform, no question about it, but it doesn't stop there -- when you're going for it, you do it the right way.

Surprised the hell out of me, but for all his publicized month-long struggles, Willie Harris still has a 380 OBP against RHP, including almost .400 against them on the road where Sox struggle the most against RHP. Clearly you have to keep him in there against righties and hope he goes on one hell of a streak. Valentin has a pretty good OBP against RHP as well, so he could be a #2 hitter. Uribe has gotten on base at 350 clip against righties as well...........Now, what do you do with 1-2 line-up spots against LHP? Rowand has a 412 OBP. Lee - 380. No brainer.

Steve Finley would be nice, but I he's fading fast in the last 3 weeks, costs 7 Mill and doesn't want to come here.

Beltran is not gonna come cheap because PO'd Astros are gonna demand a better package than what they paid for him - Marte, Anderson, Cotts....you get the idea. The only way I can see him in Chicago is if Randy Johnson is not here.....which I guess is the most likely scenario.

oeo
07-17-2004, 08:32 PM
If Jon is traded to get RJ, I still do not like the whole starting rotation. Schoeny at #5? Eeeek, that scares me. When I had my dreams of RJ, I'm thinking we have Jon as our #5, and that gives me thrills.

South Side
07-17-2004, 08:33 PM
Randy Johnson should be in the White Sox uniform, no question about it, but it doesn't stop there -- when you're going for it, you do it the right way.

Surprised the hell out of me, but for all his publicized month-long struggles, Willie Harris still has a 380 OBP against RHP, including almost .400 against them on the road where Sox struggle the most against RHP. Clearly you have to keep him in there against righties and hope he goes on one hell of a streak. Valentin has a pretty good OBP against RHP as well, so he could be a #2 hitter. Uribe has gotten on base at 350 clip against righties as well...........Now, what do you do with 1-2 line-up spots against LHP? Rowand has a 412 OBP. Lee - 380. No brainer.

Steve Finley would be nice, but I he's fading fast in the last 3 weeks, costs 7 Mill and doesn't want to come here.

Beltran is not gonna come cheap because PO'd Astros are gonna demand a better package than what they paid for him - Marte, Anderson, Cotts....you get the idea. The only way I can see him in Chicago is if Randy Johnson is not here.....which I guess is the most likely scenario.
If Marte is traded (which I even doubt would happen) would be the stupidest move EVER.

Aidan
07-17-2004, 08:38 PM
If Marte is traded (which I even doubt would happen) would be the stupidest move EVER.No way we trade our second most solid guy in the bullpen.

Basten
07-17-2004, 08:42 PM
If Jon is traded to get RJ, I still do not like the whole starting rotation. Schoeny at #5? Eeeek, that scares me. When I had my dreams of RJ, I'm thinking we have Jon as our #5, and that gives me thrills.
A healthy Schoenweiss is perfectly serviceable as a #5 - and he will be in pen in the playoffs, same as Garland.

Aidan
07-17-2004, 08:50 PM
A healthy Schoenweiss is perfectly serviceable as a #5 - and he will be in pen in the playoffs, same as Garland.Schoeneweis would be in the pen but Garland wouldn't. You use a 4 man rotation in the playoffs...

Freddy Garcia
Mark Buehrle
Esteban Loaiza
Jon Garland

Basten
07-17-2004, 09:00 PM
Schoeneweis would be in the pen but Garland wouldn't. You use a 4 man rotation in the playoffs...


Yes....

Unit
Garcia
Mark
Loaiza

Cowch44
07-17-2004, 09:05 PM
Yes....

Unit
Garcia
Mark
Loaiza
Now that is a GOOD rotation aside from the fact that Loaiza's been down lately.

Palehose13
07-17-2004, 09:12 PM
I think I am more willing to part with ELo than Garland, but I suppose they want youth.

Basten
07-17-2004, 09:43 PM
Now that is a GOOD rotation aside from the fact that Loaiza's been down lately.He'll be ok. He just needs a little more velocity is all. Different arm angle, steroids, I don't care, so whatever is necessary for 2003 Esteban to re-appear.

And it's not like you can offer Arizona to take Loaiza instead of Garland, so I guess we're gonna have to make do with E-Lo.

Flight #24
07-17-2004, 09:44 PM
Do you honestly feel that he'll stay in Chicago when all of his family and friends are in Southern Cal? Do you feel that we would be able to offer him more than say, the up-and-coming Padres? Doubt it. Just my opinion, though. And why would we?
First of all, someone posted that since he came up late in 2000, his FA year is actually 06. Not sure if that's true of not, so please confirm/deny if anyone has specific knowledge of his service time.

Secondly, there's nothing that says the Sox aren't going to try to give him an extension before he hits FA. They did it with Buehrle, and while JG's not like MG was performance-wise, he's improving and is already a pretty good pitcher. Plus he's really young. He's also (now) with a winning team and a manager that has confidence in him, AND is with a bunch of guys that he came up with and is comfortable with (and he & MB are best buds IIRC). I wouldn't at all be surprised if he gets an extension and sticks around for a few more years.

Trading him for Randy makes us better, but not better enough to warrant the additional stripping of the farm system that would likely be requested by the DBacks. As someone said - if it's Garland+ARow+mid tier guys, that's doable. If it's Garland+Arow+top prospects, thanks but no thanks.

duke of dorwood
07-17-2004, 09:57 PM
Screw the whole Idea with that team-and move on.

Basten
07-17-2004, 09:57 PM
First of all, someone posted that since he came up late in 2000, his FA year is actually 06. Not sure if that's true of not, so please confirm/deny if anyone has specific knowledge of his service time.

Secondly, there's nothing that says the Sox aren't going to try to give him an extension before he hits FA. They did it with Buehrle, and while JG's not like MG was performance-wise, he's improving and is already a pretty good pitcher. Plus he's really young. He's also (now) with a winning team and a manager that has confidence in him, AND is with a bunch of guys that he came up with and is comfortable with (and he & MB are best buds IIRC). I wouldn't at all be surprised if he gets an extension and sticks around for a few more years.

Trading him for Randy makes us better, but not better enough to warrant the additional stripping of the farm system that would likely be requested by the DBacks. As someone said - if it's Garland+ARow+mid tier guys, that's doable. If it's Garland+Arow+top prospects, thanks but no thanks.
He made 13 starts and logged 70 innings in 2000. That should count as a
year of ML service. I think.

World Series. 2 shots. 2004 and 2005. Randy Johnson finishing his career in Chicago. Are you willing to sacrifice that because of Judy who lives and dies with inducing a DP ball and who wouldn't even pitch in ALDS once Loaiza gets his stuff together this year?

This is a hard decision, one that could impact the direction this franchise will go.

Soxfest
07-17-2004, 10:37 PM
He's 24 years old. If you haven't seen improvement then you must not be watching. For starters how about the 1-0 win in Minn. 2 weeks ago?

Wow 1 game, lets talk about the many times when Sox really needed a win he got smoked by the 5th inning and we lost by 5 or more runs that far outways the decent starts he has had in a Sox uniform.

Flight #24
07-17-2004, 11:20 PM
World Series. 2 shots. 2004 and 2005. Randy Johnson finishing his career in Chicago. Are you willing to sacrifice that because of Judy who lives and dies with inducing a DP ball and who wouldn't even pitch in ALDS once Loaiza gets his stuff together this year?

This is a hard decision, one that could impact the direction this franchise will go.
My point is that Sox+RJ-Garland isn't that much improved over the current team to make the WS likely this year or next. I'd give away the system for Sox+RJ because I think that DOES improve us enough to warrant the stripping.

But I can easily see Sox+RJ-JG losting to Yanks+Benson or even BoSox. That's not worth stripping the future for.

Flight #24
07-17-2004, 11:22 PM
Wow 1 game, lets talk about the many times when Sox really needed a win he got smoked by the 5th inning and we lost by 5 or more runs that far outways the decent starts he has had in a Sox uniform.
11 quality starts out of 18 this year. IIRC, 8 of them have been what I'd call "excellent" (i.e. 7 or more IP, 2 or less ER). Yeah, he just goes out and loses games for us.

The "bad" games people are complaining about this year are ones where he still only give up 3 or 4 runs, he just does it in 1 inning. Bottom line is that 7IP 3ER is still a good start.

JDP
07-17-2004, 11:32 PM
My point is that Sox+RJ-Garland isn't that much improved over the current team to make the WS likely this year or next.


For the 103rd time....

How is a rotation of RJ, Buehrle, Garcia, Loaiza, 5th not that much improved over a rotation of Buehrle, Garcia, Loaiza, Garland, 5th???

Hello? Bueller? Anyone home in that head?

DickAllen72
07-17-2004, 11:44 PM
They're talking on ESPN1000 that there's a 50/50 chance of a three way with the Cubs sending 19yr old Felix Pie (A Ball phenom) and minor league pitcher Angel Guzman who's 0-2 with an ERA in the 4's and returning from torn labrum surgery, to Boston for Nomar. Boston would send the prospects to Arizona for RJ. This comes from a Boston Paper.

If this is accurate, it seems we could do a lot better than that. Rauch, Sweeney and Diaz would be a better offer, for instance.

Also, it just occurred to me why it's been reported that the Sox are interested in Nomar. I think KW is feigning interest just to get a feel on what prospects the DBacks are requesting for RJ. We have no need for Nomar, but if KW finds out what Arizona is requesting from Boston in the way of prospects it gives him a little edge on direct negotiations with them.

pearso66
07-18-2004, 12:41 AM
I'll bet that RJ gives us at most 2-3 more wins than Garland gives us the rest of the way. And JG gives us 4-5 more wins than SS would give us the rest of the way. I bet Garland even outshines Esteban. As there is no proof that he will return to his 2003 form. I'd like to think that last year wasn't a fluke, but its looking more and more like it is. I don't want to have to count on Esteban returning to that form in order to win the WS. Its my assumption that if we trade Garland for RJ we have the same opportunity as before to win the WS. Garland is having a solid season. Its just too bad he happens to lose a couple games that he gives up 4 runs in. If you think having Randy improves our chances of winning games where our team scores 0-2 runs, you are crazy. He isnt going to have an ERA of 1 over the rest of the season. Id rather stick with Garland

daveeym
07-18-2004, 12:47 AM
WEll espn just reported on BBTN that RJ has made no demands on what teams he wants to go to and that Arizona hasn't discussed any names with any other teams at this point.

DickAllen72
07-18-2004, 12:49 AM
I'll bet that RJ gives us at most 2-3 more wins than Garland gives us the rest of the way. And JG gives us 4-5 more wins than SS would give us the rest of the way. I bet Garland even outshines Esteban. As there is no proof that he will return to his 2003 form. I'd like to think that last year wasn't a fluke, but its looking more and more like it is. I don't want to have to count on Esteban returning to that form in order to win the WS. Its my assumption that if we trade Garland for RJ we have the same opportunity as before to win the WS. Garland is having a solid season. Its just too bad he happens to lose a couple games that he gives up 4 runs in. If you think having Randy improves our chances of winning games where our team scores 0-2 runs, you are crazy. He isnt going to have an ERA of 1 over the rest of the season. Id rather stick with Garland

I agree with you about Garland being better than Loaiza and Schoeneweis. That's why Arizona wants him and not them. I also agree with you about RJ's ERA. I'd still love to get him though.

I wonder if instead of Rowand, Garland + prospect, they would take Crede, Cotts + prospects.

Uribe could play third, Schoeneweis takes Cott's spot in the BP and our starting rotation is Johnson, Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Loaiza. Wow!

pearso66
07-18-2004, 12:56 AM
I agree with you about Garland being better than Loaiza and Schoeneweis. That's why Arizona wants him and not them. I also agree with you about RJ's ERA. I'd still love to get him though.

I wonder if instead of Rowand, Garland + prospect, they would take Crede, Cotts + prospects.

Uribe could play third, Schoeneweis takes Cott's spot in the BP and our starting rotation is Johnson, Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Loaiza. Wow!
I'm iffy on tradeing Crede too. Uribe has been not so great as of late. And Crede is our only major league ready 3B. Maybe we can get them to take Cotts, Rauch and Diaz/Munoz. I don't like the idea of filling 1 hole by creating another

gobears1987
07-18-2004, 01:01 AM
**** no! We need hitters before pitchers

DickAllen72
07-18-2004, 01:02 AM
I'm iffy on tradeing Crede too. Uribe has been not so great as of late. And Crede is our only major league ready 3B. Maybe we can get them to take Cotts, Rauch and Diaz/Munoz. I don't like the idea of filling 1 hole by creating another

I don't think it would be too much of a step down going from Crede to Uribe at third. Crede may be slightly better with the glove and may give us more home runs but their batting averages would be about the same and Uribe gives us more speed. Randy in the starting rotation would by far overshadow the slight loss at third.

pearso66
07-18-2004, 01:06 AM
I don't think it would be too much of a step down going from Crede to Uribe at third. Crede may be slightly better with the glove and may give us more home runs but their batting averages would be about the same and Uribe gives us more speed. Randy in the starting rotation would by far overshadow the slight loss at third.
While I kind of agree this year, and I hate to bring up the future, because winning a WS is more important to me, but I don't think bringing RJ here makes us 100% winners. I did see someone say that RJ will be winnign the WS wherever he is, and I disagree with that. Crede is better all around than Uribe, except for speed. Crede is better offensively and defensively, and the way our Offense has performed the past couple days, we need as many advantages as possible. but thats just my $0.02

Man Soo Lee
07-18-2004, 03:04 AM
First of all, someone posted that since he came up late in 2000, his FA year is actually 06. Not sure if that's true of not, so please confirm/deny if anyone has specific knowledge of his service time.

Secondly, there's nothing that says the Sox aren't going to try to give him an extension before he hits FA. They did it with Buehrle, and while JG's not like MG was performance-wise, he's improving and is already a pretty good pitcher. Plus he's really young. According to the 2001 media guide, Garland had 89 days of service time in 2000. A year is something like 172 days, so he shouldn't be a free agent until after the '06 season.

Garland has been valuable the last couple of years because he's been an average starter and cheap. Escalating arbitration awards (or the contract offer it would take to avoid arbitration) mean he won't remain cheap for his 5th and 6th years. Will he be more than an average starter? If not, it's possible to replace his contribution through free agency for similar or less money.

Aidan
07-18-2004, 03:10 AM
"Agent says neither side has requested trade"
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1841917

Dice
07-18-2004, 08:30 AM
I'd trade Garland in a heart beat if it meant getting the Big Unit. I'm sick of Garland's inconsistency. He's in his fourth major league season and he's still doing the same sh*t he's been doing since he first came up to the majors. And now the Manuel is gone HE'S STILL DOING IT! So please don't give me the execuse that it's Jerry's fault!


Now Aaron Rowand is a different story. I would not trade him! I think he's going to be the next Mike Cameron. Gold Glove center fielder with power.

So to the Arizona GM: You can have Garland BUT you can't have Rowand.

gosox41
07-18-2004, 09:34 AM
WEll espn just reported on BBTN that RJ has made no demands on what teams he wants to go to and that Arizona hasn't discussed any names with any other teams at this point.

There's too many rumors floating around. I heard on WMVP that RJ says he only wants to be traded to the Yankees or Cardinals. Anyone else hear that?

If that's the case, maybe the Sox could step in and make it a 3 way trade as money will likely be an issue for the Cardinals. While Rolen and Puljos are untouchable, Edmonds would look good in CF for the Sox.



Bob

misty60481
07-18-2004, 09:45 AM
I agree I think Edmunds is about best Center-fielder today plus his bat, also spent time in AL so knows most of there pitchers. I know his salary is high but if we could trade Lee and a prospect it would help cut down on money. Outfield LF- Rowand CF- Edmunds RF- Maggs? if he signns---best in AL

Jjav829
07-18-2004, 10:02 AM
I agree I think Edmunds is about best Center-fielder today plus his bat, also spent time in AL so knows most of there pitchers. I know his salary is high but if we could trade Lee and a prospect it would help cut down on money. Outfield LF- Rowand CF- Edmunds RF- Maggs? if he signns---best in AL
The Cardinals are currently in 1st place. They're not gonna trade Edmonds unless they're getting a near equal CF and pitching in return.

harwar
07-18-2004, 10:02 AM
Theres' all kinds of posturing going on here and you really can't believe any of it at this point.
The Dbacks owner is going to italy today and said "if anything happens let me know".
Randy Johnson seems to say something different everday.
The baseball media just plain makes stuff up if there' nothing factual to print.
It does sem to make the average baseball fan feel :?:

gosox41
07-18-2004, 10:20 AM
The Cardinals are currently in 1st place. They're not gonna trade Edmonds unless they're getting a near equal CF and pitching in return.
Probably not. But if St. Louis wants RJ they needd to move payroll and may need help giving up prospects to get him.

I'm not saying this will happen, but if you want to get quality (RJ) and you need help paying for him then you better expect to give up quality.

If not, good luck to the Cardinals in getting Randy Johnson in a straight up trade while taking on $23 mill. in salary over the next year and a half.


Bob

Jjav829
07-18-2004, 10:51 AM
Probably not. But if St. Louis wants RJ they needd to move payroll and may need help giving up prospects to get him.

I'm not saying this will happen, but if you want to get quality (RJ) and you need help paying for him then you better expect to give up quality.

If not, good luck to the Cardinals in getting Randy Johnson in a straight up trade while taking on $23 mill. in salary over the next year and a half.


Bob
They do have to free some payroll but it seems like they want to clear payroll by freeing themselves of Matt Morris. They'd trade Morris for prospects and use those prospects to help acquire RJ.

fquaye149
07-18-2004, 11:07 AM
Did I miss the season JG did anything, he has not won anything or improved since day one. JG the Enigma
look at this bull####. you probably love kip wells is the funny part of this.

pearso66
07-18-2004, 12:08 PM
I'd trade Garland in a heart beat if it meant getting the Big Unit. I'm sick of Garland's inconsistency. He's in his fourth major league season and he's still doing the same sh*t he's been doing since he first came up to the majors. And now the Manuel is gone HE'S STILL DOING IT! So please don't give me the execuse that it's Jerry's fault!


Now Aaron Rowand is a different story. I would not trade him! I think he's going to be the next Mike Cameron. Gold Glove center fielder with power.

So to the Arizona GM: You can have Garland BUT you can't have Rowand.
So you'd trade Garland and not Rowand? While Rowand has been good, he hasn't been spectacular. He might hit for power, but he won't be a gold glover. I really think he's only a 4th OF at best. I don't nkow how you cant tell that Garland has improved. He has been pretty damn good this year. Sure he has had lapses and walks a couple batters in an inning once in a while, but the past few years, the other team would have scored 5-6 runs that inning, now he's reduced it to 2-3 runs. He always gives the team a chance to win. He is the type of pitcher this team needs.

fquaye149
07-18-2004, 01:11 PM
So you'd trade Garland and not Rowand? While Rowand has been good, he hasn't been spectacular. He might hit for power, but he won't be a gold glover. I really think he's only a 4th OF at best. I don't nkow how you cant tell that Garland has improved. He has been pretty damn good this year. Sure he has had lapses and walks a couple batters in an inning once in a while, but the past few years, the other team would have scored 5-6 runs that inning, now he's reduced it to 2-3 runs. He always gives the team a chance to win. He is the type of pitcher this team needs.
haha don't waste your breath arguing here. i mean, he made the claim that rowand will be a gold glover after all.

Dice
07-18-2004, 08:30 PM
So you'd trade Garland and not Rowand? While Rowand has been good, he hasn't been spectacular. He might hit for power, but he won't be a gold glover. I really think he's only a 4th OF at best. I don't nkow how you cant tell that Garland has improved. He has been pretty damn good this year. Sure he has had lapses and walks a couple batters in an inning once in a while, but the past few years, the other team would have scored 5-6 runs that inning, now he's reduced it to 2-3 runs. He always gives the team a chance to win. He is the type of pitcher this team needs.Your kidding me? Rowand our fourth best outfielder? Who's ahead of him in terms of natural outfielder besides Maggs and Lee? Borchard? Needs more time in the minors. Willie? Great speed but he's a second basement and doesn't have the power. Perez? Good player off the bench but not a full-time player. Gload? Give me a break!

Garland is in his fourth year and has not had 1 winning season and he's only had a ERA of under 4 one time in his career. Where is the improvement? Here is Rowand's numbers since his major league appearance in 2001:
2001-.293 avg, 4 HR, 20 RBI
2002-.258 avg, 7 HR, 29 RBI
2003-.287 avg, 6 HR, 24 RBI
And this is all as a part-time player and here's his number this year:
.295 avg, 11 HR, 24 RBI

Dice
07-18-2004, 08:31 PM
haha don't waste your breath arguing here. i mean, he made the claim that rowand will be a gold glover after all.
And you probably thought that Mike Cameron wouldn't amount to anything when he left the Sox.

OEO Magglio
07-18-2004, 08:36 PM
Your kidding me? Rowand our fourth best outfielder? Who's ahead of him in terms of natural outfielder besides Maggs and Lee? Borchard? Needs more time in the minors. Willie? Great speed but he's a second basement and doesn't have the power. Perez? Good player off the bench but not a full-time player. Gload? Give me a break!

Garland is in his fourth year and has not had 1 winning season and he's only had a ERA of under 4 one time in his career. Where is the improvement? Here is Rowand's numbers since his major league appearance in 2001:
2001-.293 avg, 4 HR, 20 RBI
2002-.258 avg, 7 HR, 29 RBI
2003-.287 avg, 6 HR, 24 RBI
And this is all as a part-time player and here's his number this year:
.295 avg, 11 HR, 24 RBI
Gold glove centerfieder, your kidding right? Rowand is average at best in center, he might make a spectacular play but that's because a lot of the time he has to make that play because he got a bad read or bad jump on the ball. I really like how aaron has been swinging the bat so far but if you think he's a gold glove centerfielder well you have to watch baseball some more.

Basten
07-18-2004, 09:00 PM
Gold glove centerfieder, your kidding right? Rowand is average at best in center.
Anybody who doesn't think Rowand is at worst an ABOVE-average defensive CF does not know baseball, it's as simple as that. Especially, when you're comparing him to a stiff like Borchard.

People, it's not 2002 anymore.

Daver
07-18-2004, 09:36 PM
Anybody who doesn't think Rowand is at worst an ABOVE-average defensive CF does not know baseball, it's as simple as that. Especially, when you're comparing him to a stiff like Borchard.

People, it's not 2002 anymore.
I know nothing about baseball then.

Basten
07-19-2004, 01:02 AM
I know nothing about baseball then.
No, you're just a slave to your own bias. Common affliction.

FarWestChicago
07-19-2004, 01:05 AM
No, you're just a slave to your own bias. Common affliction.Actually, you greatly overestimate your own intelligence. That is a common affliction.

Cowch44
07-19-2004, 01:18 AM
:tomatoaward
Yay for this thread.

Basten
07-19-2004, 01:40 AM
Actually, you greatly overestimate your own intelligence. That is a common affliction.
You don't say....

Perhaps you could maybe help me see the light with respect to Aaron Rowand and his "barely adequate" defense in CF this year (notice, I didn't say RF....and I do mean this year as opposed to 2002).......Come on, flex some of that searing intelligence and show me the errors (npi) of my ways.

Last time I checked - and I check often! - his reads, jumps, routes and technique have improved by leaps and bounds in a relatively short period of time. His inexperience and ultra-aggressiveness still bite him on the ass occasionally, but that's just part of the game.

FarWestChicago
07-19-2004, 01:51 AM
Come on, flex some of that searing intelligence and show me the errors (npi) of my ways.You asked for it...

Dice
07-19-2004, 11:36 AM
Did anybody here think that Mike Cameron was going to be a gold glove center fielder when he was with the White Sox? I did. And I see the same thing in Rowand in what I saw in Cameron.

At the time I liked the trade of Cameron AND I also hated it. I liked it because we got Paulie out of the deal BUT at the same time I knew Cameron was going to be a solid center fielder. If I was the GM back then would I have taken the trade back? Nope. But it would have been nice to have both Paulie and Cameron in the same line-up. But I guess it was just a pipe dream.

Flight #24
07-19-2004, 12:17 PM
Did anybody here think that Mike Cameron was going to be a gold glove center fielder when he was with the White Sox? I did. And I see the same thing in Rowand in what I saw in Cameron.

At the time I liked the trade of Cameron AND I also hated it. I liked it because we got Paulie out of the deal BUT at the same time I knew Cameron was going to be a solid center fielder. If I was the GM back then would I have taken the trade back? Nope. But it would have been nice to have both Paulie and Cameron in the same line-up. But I guess it was just a pipe dream.
Actually, IIRC Cameron was acknowledged to be a gold-glove caliber CF from the time he came up with the Sox. What his problem was was hitting for average (aomething that's continued since he left the Sox - the 4HR game notwithstanding).

ARow does not compare in any way shape or form defensively to Cameron, except that they play the same position, both use outfield gloves, and both wear spikes.

ARow has made himself into a fundamentally sound, decent defender in CF (re:average). Cameron is excellent, something ARow simply does not have the physical tools to be.

JKryl
07-21-2004, 01:46 PM
Do it now! What are we waiting for? Cleveland to catch up?