PDA

View Full Version : Yankees media declares Sox fit for Unit


PavanoBeltran'05
11-01-2004, 07:16 AM
From a New York Newspaper:

"Like how about Randy Johnson with the White Sox? The Yanks want him, but they might only be able to land him in a three-way trade. The Cardinals are the new darlings in the field. But the White Sox, with a package built around Carlos Lee and Jon Garland, could be most attractive."

I don't know what they know, but this could be interesting.

PavanoBeltran'05
11-01-2004, 07:27 AM
Garland's fit to make 3 mil and Carlos at 8, right? If we could get AZ to take a little of Unit's salary, this would be outstanding.

PavanoBeltran'05
11-01-2004, 07:29 AM
The other thing that comes to mind is the two way scenario this provides.

1.) Sox make it into playoffs with a stellar front end of the staff and we see all of the payroll hikes and public notoriety that gets a club moving forward.
2.) The RJ experiment doesn't pan out and we're able to trade him at the deadline to some other club for some great prospects.

Don't see how this thing hurts at all.

Rocky Soprano
11-01-2004, 08:30 AM
Switch Lee with Konerko and I would do it.

Baby Fisk
11-01-2004, 08:40 AM
How sad is it that I'm just thrilled to hear the Sox MIGHT be in the mix, even if nothing comes of it... :(:

duke of dorwood
11-01-2004, 08:50 AM
You guys would give up all that for an over 40 pitcher?


What is going on?

:KW

I only make 3 for 1 deals, so pick another player, please

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 08:55 AM
You guys would give up all that for an over 40 pitcher?


What is going on?


Absolutely. Look at last year's deadline. How many front end starters were traded? Penny and Freddy and that' about it. And they both cost a lot. If we get the Unit we can always trade for a big bat. In terms of a pitcher in his 40s, let me remind you taht were are not talking about just any old schmoe and don't make it look like that.

Was Roger Clemens just "some pitcher in his 40s" last year? No, neither was Randy. He's tradeable if we collapse, he's signed for only one year, Lee and Garland have both proven they are not mentally tough, and we can always acquire offense.

The only way I wouldn't do this if I were KW is if I was sure I couldn't make either offseason or midseason accomodations for the offense. And even then I would consider it.

samram
11-01-2004, 09:04 AM
How sad is it that I'm just thrilled to hear the Sox MIGHT be in the mix, even if nothing comes of it... :(:
Pretty sad. However, if you were a Boston fan, and you heard the Red Sox mentioned in the same sentence as RJ, you would have pretended it was a done deal, and gone out and bought a jersey with his name on it. At least, you still have the White Sox fan skepticism.

BTW, is it still OK to make fun of Red Sox fans? Baseball won't be quite as fun if we can't.:D:

Baby Fisk
11-01-2004, 09:06 AM
Pretty sad. However, if you were a Boston fan, and you heard the Red Sox mentioned in the same sentence as RJ, you would have pretended it was a done deal, and gone out and bought a jersey with his name on it. At least, you still have the White Sox fan skepticism.

BTW, is it still OK to make fun of Red Sox fans? Baseball won't be quite as fun if we can't.:D:It's the skepticism that unites us. Just look at this week's WSI poll! :cool:

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 09:27 AM
Look at the recent WS winners:

BoSox- Schilling, Pedro
Marlins- Beckett
Angels- (exception)
DBacks- Schilling + Johnson
Yankees - (98-00) Clemens, Pettite, others I can't recall
Braves- Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux

See a pattern? Some may cringe to trade away Carlos, seeing as how he can be good for us for many years, but I think this shows he can't win us jack without one of these types of pitchers.

If we get Johnson, I think we finally have a WS contending pitching rotation. Think about that. Isn't it better to grab the arms first and hope everything shakes out later? Even the Flubs, with their mediocre offense and poor bullpen, came close to the WS 03.

MisterB
11-01-2004, 09:57 AM
That trade doesn't thrill me. The upgrade from Garland to Johnson is great, but we still have won't have a legitimate #5 (please, no Grilli) and frankly Contreras is a bigger ? than Garland at #4 (Garland is 25 and still has room to improve, Contreras will be 33 next year). Coupled with the fact we have no ready replacement for Lee. Do you really want an OF of Gload-Rowand-Everett (possibly the worst defensive OF ever) or Everett-Rowand-Borchard? Overall it fills one of the Sox' holes (top-of-the-rotation starter) but opens another (needing 2 outfielders instead of 1). Overall, it maybe improves the Sox by 5 games (the upgrade of Johnson over Garland, minus the lower offensive support the rest of the rotation will get).

gosox41
11-01-2004, 10:02 AM
The other thing that comes to mind is the two way scenario this provides.

1.) Sox make it into playoffs with a stellar front end of the staff and we see all of the payroll hikes and public notoriety that gets a club moving forward.
2.) The RJ experiment doesn't pan out and we're able to trade him at the deadline to some other club for some great prospects.

Don't see how this thing hurts at all.
I hate to be negative, but the Sox don't seem to have ,uch luck on their side when it:

3. RJ gets injured in spring training when the family of sea gull he killed attack him and he misses significant time due to injury. Maybe it won't be the birds getting him, but injuries are always a possibility.


Bob

gosox41
11-01-2004, 10:04 AM
From a New York Newspaper:

"Like how about Randy Johnson with the White Sox? The Yanks want him, but they might only be able to land him in a three-way trade. The Cardinals are the new darlings in the field. But the White Sox, with a package built around Carlos Lee and Jon Garland, could be most attractive."

I don't know what they know, but this could be interesting.
Is this really a good idea. I guess it would be deemed an 'aggressive trade'. But basically it still leaves with the Sox with 4 starters and no matter what they need a fifth. It also takes away one of the teams better offensive players while adding payroll. So now the Sox have a great pitcher, 4 starters, one less OFer and about $5 mill more in payroll.

Does this make the team that much better?


Bob

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 10:05 AM
That trade doesn't thrill me. The upgrade from Garland to Johnson is great, but we still have won't have a legitimate #5 (please, no Grilli) and frankly Contreras is a bigger ? than Garland at #4 (Garland is 25 and still has room to improve, Contreras will be 33 next year). Coupled with the fact we have no ready replacement for Lee. Do you really want an OF of Gload-Rowand-Everett (possibly the worst defensive OF ever) or Everett-Rowand-Borchard? Overall it fills one of the Sox' holes (top-of-the-rotation starter) but opens another (needing 2 outfielders instead of 1). Overall, it maybe improves the Sox by 5 games (the upgrade of Johnson over Garland, minus the lower offensive support the rest of the rotation will get).The problem with this rumor is that Arizona doesn't need another LF with Gonzo coming back next year. Why would they want CLee? Neither can play CF. I don't think Gonzo can play RF, and I KNOW Lee can't. Konerko makes a lot more sense for them since they can let Richie Sexson go.

Mickster
11-01-2004, 10:09 AM
Could it be that the we have our eye on Carlos Guillen to replace CLee if traded? A much cheaper option in LF at a reduced price.

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 10:11 AM
Could it be that the we have our eye on Carlos Guillen to replace CLee if traded? A much cheaper option in LF at a reduced price.I sure hope not. Guys like that are more trouble than they're worth.

Kogs35
11-01-2004, 10:12 AM
Could it be that the we have our eye on Carlos Guillen to replace CLee if traded? A much cheaper option in LF at a reduced price.
dont you mean jose guillen?

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 10:12 AM
The problem with this rumor is that Arizona doesn't need another LF with Gonzo coming back next year. Why would they want CLee? Neither can play CF. I don't think Gonzo can play RF, and I KNOW Lee can't. Konerko makes a lot more sense for them since they can let Richie Sexson go.
Plus, since IIRC $6mil of RJ's salary is deferred, we can probably look at this as flat in payroll or a slight improvement. I believe that $6mil is deferred for a while too, since the deal was signed under the previous CBS that allowed such things.

That might even allow for signing an OF to replace Carlos (JD Drew?). Although Konerko would still be a better trade for the Sox and might actually be a better fit for the DBacks.

DVsoxfan
11-01-2004, 10:16 AM
Could it be that the we have our eye on Carlos Guillen to replace CLee if traded? A much cheaper option in LF at a reduced price.
Carlos Guillen is the SS for the Tigers...do you mean Jose Guillen?

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 10:26 AM
Plus, since IIRC $6mil of RJ's salary is deferred, we can probably look at this as flat in payroll or a slight improvement. I believe that $6mil is deferred for a while too, since the deal was signed under the previous CBS that allowed such things.

That might even allow for signing an OF to replace Carlos (JD Drew?). Although Konerko would still be a better trade for the Sox and might actually be a better fit for the DBacks.Whether the D-backs eat some of RJ's salary will depend on who they get in trade. If the Sox give them both Lee/Konerko and Garland, I would think the D-backs would eat a sizable portion of it. But I'd rather give them just Lee/Konerko and maybe a prospect and take on his whole salary. That leaves us with a pretty solid rotation intact. The difference in cost is just about the price of another over-the-hill Indian.

Mickster
11-01-2004, 10:39 AM
dont you mean jose guillen?
My bad. :redface:

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 10:58 AM
Whether the D-backs eat some of RJ's salary will depend on who they get in trade. If the Sox give them both Lee/Konerko and Garland, I would think the D-backs would eat a sizable portion of it. But I'd rather give them just Lee/Konerko and maybe a prospect and take on his whole salary. That leaves us with a pretty solid rotation intact. The difference in cost is just about the price of another over-the-hill Indian.
It all depends on who you can/will get with the savings. I'd agree that a straight up Koney-RJ deal would be awesome, and I'd even throw in a prospect (but no one better than say Munoz). I'm not sure that gets it done tho.

If you trade Garland and get cash back, then you might be able to get a Kenny Rogers-esque pitcher and Vizquel. So effectively, your deal ends up being Koney for RJ+Vizquel, which isn't a bad move IMO.

Obviously the ideal scenario would be to trade Koney and sign Vizquel anyway, but we all know how likely that is unless there's a reasonable payroll bump.

FightingBillini
11-01-2004, 10:59 AM
Hell, while we are at it, lets get Carlos Guillen, too. We could certainly use him. Besides, we could set a world record for guys named Guillen on a non-Venezeulan team.

soxfan26
11-01-2004, 11:00 AM
Whether the D-backs eat some of RJ's salary will depend on who they get in trade. If the Sox give them both Lee/Konerko and Garland, I would think the D-backs would eat a sizable portion of it. But I'd rather give them just Lee/Konerko and maybe a prospect and take on his whole salary. That leaves us with a pretty solid rotation intact. The difference in cost is just about the price of another over-the-hill Indian.
Solid rotation but you just removed the two most productive hitters from the lineup. How do you fix that problem?

FightingBillini
11-01-2004, 11:01 AM
Solid rotation but you just removed the two most productive hitters from the lineup. How do you fix that problem?
He meant Lee OR Konerko. Not both.

soxfan26
11-01-2004, 11:03 AM
He meant Lee OR Konerko. Not both.
Lee or Konerko plus a prospect for RJ should be in deep pink.

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 11:09 AM
I can't believe some of the comments regarding this deal:

"Yeah, it gives us a top of the rotation starter, BUT we have no 5th/poor offense"

Hello? McFly? Think McFly. We CANNOT win the WS w/out a top of the rotation starter!! It is impossible in most cases anyways and is especially so in our case given our mediocre bullpen and only slightly above average offense. If we don't have a guy like Johnson, the season is basically over anyway and all we can hope for is the old "We'll make the playoffs, revenue will go up, and then we can acquire what we need to be a WS contender."

Do you think the Red Sox would have refused to give up Trot Nixon and Bronson Arroyo to get Schilling? Of course not. Now, we have to give up CLee and Garland b/c of our payroll limitations. I mean, we could give up BMac, Anderson, and Uribe but we wouldn't be able to afford Johnson, Lee, and Garland so better to just unload the other two in the Johnson deal if possible.
If you don't like Johnson, I would like to ask which other pitcher do you think will lead us to a World Series title?

FightingBillini
11-01-2004, 11:15 AM
Lee or Konerko plus a prospect for RJ should be in deep pink.
I agree. However, the D-Backs have new ownership. They need to cut payroll and get in some young talent. We could be helped a lot if the Red Sox express interest in getting the Big Unit. If that is the case, the Yankees will throw one of their few good prosepects into the deal for almost nothing in return just to make sure we get Johnson and not Boston.

jordan23ventura
11-01-2004, 11:21 AM
From a New York Newspaper:

"Like how about Randy Johnson with the White Sox? The Yanks want him, but they might only be able to land him in a three-way trade. The Cardinals are the new darlings in the field. But the White Sox, with a package built around Carlos Lee and Jon Garland, could be most attractive."

I don't know what they know, but this could be interesting.
I really don't like the idea of losing Carlos, especially considering his defense this year. On the other hand it would hurt to lose PK as well, but I think we would be better off starting Gload at 1B then trying to stick a clubhouse cancer or injury-prone "maybe" in the outfield with an outfielder who hasn't proven himself in the ML yet and another who just came off an injury and his worst ever ML season.

That said, I'd like to see KW try to pull off a three way trade if he could that would send PK off to another team for prospects/cheap ML talent and then ship those players and Garland off to Arizona (assuming they didn't want PK).

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 11:25 AM
Lee or Konerko plus a prospect for RJ should be in deep pink.Not if we're taking all of RJ's salary. The D-backs are going to have a hard time trading RJ without throwing in cash to pay part of his salary. If you agree to take all his salary, you would expect to give them less in trade. Note that this is the reverse of KW's usual mid-year trade, where he throws in extra players to get the other team to pay the salary of the guy the Sox get. It becomes affordable if you just use the $4M they were planning on wasting on Vizquel.

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 11:36 AM
It becomes affordable if you just use the $4M they were planning on wasting on Vizquel.
It's only a waste if you believe in Crede, Uribe, and Harris, all of whom have been pillars of consistency and are guaranteed to contribute.

It seems so unlike Kenny to actually pay for all of the contract. Also, I don't think we can afford to keep Lee, Konerko, and Johnson at their full prices anyway. That's around $33mil, plus $20mil for our other starters, plus $8mil for Thomas...Even if KW eats all of the contract, I still see Lee/Konerko being dealt for a package of bullpen/5th starter/"grinder" top of the order types to alleviate payroll. Too bad:whiner:

fusillirob1983
11-01-2004, 11:57 AM
Even though many have criticized Jon Garland, I don't think it would help much to give him up to get Randy Johnson for a season if he's healthy. Granted, you guys might argue that this could be the season we get over the top if we get him, but who will be our 5th starter if Garland is gone? Also who would take Carlos' place in left?

mdep524
11-01-2004, 12:24 PM
Even though many have criticized Jon Garland, I don't think it would help much to give him up to get Randy Johnson for a season if he's healthy. Granted, you guys might argue that this could be the season we get over the top if we get him, but who will be our 5th starter if Garland is gone? Also who would take Carlos' place in left?
Granted, the Sox have had more than their fair share of problems with a #5 starter, but I think a solid #1-4 is more important than an adequate #1-5, especially in the playoffs, and isn't that what getting Randy Johnson would be all about? Plus, the Sox #5 starters have been so ridiculously bad that it makes the problem seem bigger than it really is in general.

I don't know if I would trade Lee and Garland for (one year of) Randy Johnson- mainly because it would leave us with NO outfield- if Frank is hurt: Gload, Rowand and Borchard might be your Opening Day outfield!- and because it doesn't really put the Sox in a great position for '06 if they don't win next year. But in general I would take a great #1 starter and a below average-to-adequate #5 over a decent #1 starter and a solid #5.

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 12:28 PM
It's only a waste if you believe in Crede, Uribe, and Harris, all of whom have been pillars of consistency and are guaranteed to contribute.

It seems so unlike Kenny to actually pay for all of the contract. Also, I don't think we can afford to keep Lee, Konerko, and Johnson at their full prices anyway. That's around $33mil, plus $20mil for our other starters, plus $8mil for Thomas...Even if KW eats all of the contract, I still see Lee/Konerko being dealt for a package of bullpen/5th starter/"grinder" top of the order types to alleviate payroll. Too bad:whiner: I wasn't aware that Vizquel came with a guarantee.

Lip Man 1
11-01-2004, 12:33 PM
Mdep:

Keep in mind what the Cardinals did this year with adequate starters in the 1-5 slots....plus how many games have the Sox blown the last three years by inept #5 guys? This year alone that spot garnered a 9-16 record with three wins coming in September when the Sox were dead.

Those blown games in May / June can't be made up by the 1-4 starters can they?

Good pitching in depth is the key. Not having a few good starters and a few good relief guys. The holes will be found and exposed by other MLB teams. That also doesn't even figure in injuries, slumps and simply having a bad year from a guy or two which is practically inevitable over the course of a 162 game season.

Lip

SOXBOY
11-01-2004, 12:48 PM
The Sox should not trade Lee or Garland for the BigUnit.Lee's bat is really needed since Maggs is gone and the Sox should and hopfully take the money for Maggs and use it on a Front line Pitcher.BigUnit is not the answer and since Frank is coming off injury and no Maggs we need all the offense we can get.

pudge
11-01-2004, 12:54 PM
There's something I just don't like about this. The general argument here seems to be that it's a no-lose situation because the Sox could trade RJ at the deadline if it doesn't work out. Well, what if the 40+ RJ blows his back out? Then you're hosed. I dunno, I'd rather see another arm added to the rotation via free agency and hang on to both Lee and Konerko. Remember, without Maggs, we can't afford to lose too much pop, and we'll already be losing pop if Vizquel replaces Valentin.

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 01:08 PM
Okay. If you don't want an ace pitcher, you don't want to win the World Series, it's that easy. Look at what the Cardinals "depth" gave them in the post season: a lot of runs given up and an absolute trouncing in the WS. As for the loss of Carpenter, just ask yourself if you would have taken him over Schilling.

People fail to realize the success enjoyed by the Cardinals came because of OUTSTANDING hitting and a very good bullpen. Without those, they're not in the WS. And look where that got them. If we settle for depth and make the playoffs and RJ is on the Yanks, forget it, it's over. Is that all you really want to look forward to?

In regards to Johnson being 40, I respond that you can't win anything w/out taking risks. To me, a hall of famer who was the BEST PITCHER IS BASEBALL last year is worth the risk.

If we don't get Johnson we wave bye bye to a World Series title. It's that simple. Carlos Lee and Jon Garland do not win championships, Randy Johnson does. Doesn't mean he will, but it opens the door.

But hey, let's jsut try to make the playoffs and see what happens. It's all a crapshoot anyway. Funny how the teams that always win the "crapshoot" have dominant fornt end starting pitching.

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 01:09 PM
Remember, without Maggs, we can't afford to lose too much pop
We can't afford not to match up against other teams starters. That is the most important thing.

mdep524
11-01-2004, 01:12 PM
Mdep:

Keep in mind what the Cardinals did this year with adequate starters in the 1-5 slots....plus how many games have the Sox blown the last three years by inept #5 guys? This year alone that spot garnered a 9-16 record with three wins coming in September when the Sox were dead.

Those blown games in May / June can't be made up by the 1-4 starters can they?

Good pitching in depth is the key. Not having a few good starters and a few good relief guys. The holes will be found and exposed by other MLB teams. That also doesn't even figure in injuries, slumps and simply having a bad year from a guy or two which is practically inevitable over the course of a 162 game season.

Lip
You're right, I don't think the Sox should have a revolving door of 5th starters like they did this year. That was an embarrasment. And having a back up plan in case of injury is a good thing as well. But I refuse to blame the 2004 demise on the horrendous 5th starter situation.

You mention the Cardinals- in Spring Training this year were you impressed with their 1-5 starters? If the Sox came into '04 with Morris, Carpenter, Williams, Marquis and Suppan for their rotation, I am sure you would not have been pleased. That was 4 question marks going into the season. Amazingly, 4 of those 5 guys stepped up their game and maxed out their potential. But then what did the Cardinals do in the playoffs when they didn't have a go-to guy?

Good pitching wins in the regular season, dominant pitching wins in the playoffs.

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 01:21 PM
There's something I just don't like about this. The general argument here seems to be that it's a no-lose situation because the Sox could trade RJ at the deadline if it doesn't work out. Well, what if the 40+ RJ blows his back out? Then you're hosed. I dunno, I'd rather see another arm added to the rotation via free agency and hang on to both Lee and Konerko. Remember, without Maggs, we can't afford to lose too much pop, and we'll already be losing pop if Vizquel replaces Valentin.And then what if that FA suffers an arm injury, and won't be able to pitch for two years? Then you're stuck with a guy who has a bad arm for 2 more years!

:chickenlittle

Christ people! This is the same dribble that was going on last year when RJ was turning 40. I recall Sportscenter dubbing him "The most overrated Fantasy pitcher." oops. The guy still has velocity, he threw a perfect game last year, and his September numbers are ungodly. Don't forget we're also talking about an organization that hasn't signed a big named FA since 1996, and for some reason trades talent in order to get talent instead of paying on the spot.

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 01:23 PM
Okay. If you don't want an ace pitcher, you don't want to win the World Series, it's that easy. Look at what the Cardinals "depth" gave them in the post season: a lot of runs given up and an absolute trouncing in the WS. As for the loss of Carpenter, just ask yourself if you would have taken him over Schilling.

People fail to realize the success enjoyed by the Cardinals came because of OUTSTANDING hitting and a very good bullpen. Without those, they're not in the WS. And look where that got them. If we settle for depth and make the playoffs and RJ is on the Yanks, forget it, it's over. Is that all you really want to look forward to?

In regards to Johnson being 40, I respond that you can't win anything w/out taking risks. To me, a hall of famer who was the BEST PITCHER IS BASEBALL last year is worth the risk.

If we don't get Johnson we wave bye bye to a World Series title. It's that simple. Carlos Lee and Jon Garland do not win championships, Randy Johnson does. Doesn't mean he will, but it opens the door.

But hey, let's jsut try to make the playoffs and see what happens. It's all a crapshoot anyway. Funny how the teams that always win the "crapshoot" have dominant fornt end starting pitching.Age is not the issue. It's how well he holds up. If you look at RJ's numbers, there's almost no evidence of a falloff in his performance. He's posted ERA's below 2.7 in 5 of the last 6 years (he was hurt in 2003). If you look longer term, he's getting BETTER. The only sign of falloff is his K/9 are down a bit from his peak, but still pretty impressive. But his #PIT/IP and #PIT/PA are down, indicating that he's learned to conserve his strength a bit as he gets older. He's in the top 3 in MLB in just about any pitching category you can think of. I'd rather have Randy Johnson at 80% than any FA out there at 100%.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 01:26 PM
I don't know if I would trade Lee and Garland for (one year of) Randy Johnson- mainly because it would leave us with NO outfield- if Frank is hurt: Gload, Rowand and Borchard might be your Opening Day outfield!- and because it doesn't really put the Sox in a great position for '06 if they don't win next year. But in general I would take a great #1 starter and a below average-to-adequate #5 over a decent #1 starter and a solid #5.
Am I missing something? Or are you suggesting that if Frank is NOT hurt he's an option for the OF? Frank who?:?:

spataro51
11-01-2004, 01:27 PM
I agree you have to take risks to have any shot at winning anything. Kenny is known to have taken risks and well some have worked and some have not, but i believe if there is a chance to get RJ then kenny will work his ass to make it work.

mdep524
11-01-2004, 01:30 PM
Am I missing something? Or are you suggesting that if Frank is NOT hurt he's an option for the OF? Frank who?:?:
You have a problem with Frank in the OF? He can't be worse defensively than Gload or Everett!

No. Actually, what I meant was that if Frank was hurt, Carl Everett would likely be the DH, whereas if Frank were healthy Carl would be a candidate for the OF.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 01:40 PM
You have a problem with Frank in the OF? He can't be worse defensively than Gload or Everett!

No. Actually, what I meant was that if Frank was hurt, Carl Everett would likely be the DH, whereas if Frank were healthy Carl would be a candidate for the OF.
Ah. That would make much more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Man Soo Lee
11-01-2004, 10:56 PM
Can someone explain the logic of trading Johnson for a package including Konerko or Lee from Arizona's perspective?

It's hard to come up with scenarios where trading their best pitcher and drawing card improves the Diamondbacks for '05, especially when they are taking a significant salary in return.

If they are rebuilding, they have no use for Konerko who is in the last year of his contract. Lee has an option for '06, but slugging outfielders (Conor Jackson, Carlos Quentin) are the strength of their farm system.

depy48
11-01-2004, 11:03 PM
You guys would give up all that for an over 40 pitcher?


What is going on?

:KW

I only make 3 for 1 deals, so pick another player, please
how does brandon mccarthy sound?

WhiteSoxFan84
11-01-2004, 11:46 PM
If the Sox deal C-Lee and Garland to the D'Bax for RJ and $8 mill or whatever amount it would take to even out the salaries, KW and JR have to go all out and spend, spend, spend.

1st, get a solid SP to fill Garland's spot. Whether it's Derek Lowe or Matt Clement or even Carl Pavano, SPEND THE MONEY!

2nd, find someone to fill Carlos Lee's spot. I'd love it to be Carlos Beltran, but that's pretty much impossible. A left handed slugger wouldn't hurt, possibly Jeromy Burnitez?

3rd, fill the bullpen with reliable arms. Eddie Guardado is now available, possibly looking into getting him along with Curtis Leskanic wouldn't hurt.

4th, if they go through all this, put together a solid roster, 1-25, solid enough to win the division and by God somehow solid enough to win the pennant and possibly the... gulp... World Series, then he can turn around and sell the team for $300mill or whatever the hell it'll be worth after he brings a World Series to Chicago! The team will be priceless, all the fair weather fans will be White Sox fans, sellouts will be frequent, and the southside won't seem "so bad" after all.

The bottom line is, if JR puts up with a year of $10-$20mill in losses and let's KW spend, he can turn around and make that loss multiplied by 50 when he sells the team after they win the World Series.

nodiggity59
11-01-2004, 11:53 PM
If the Sox deal C-Lee and Garland to the D'Bax for RJ and $8 mill or whatever amount it would take to even out the salaries, KW and JR have to go all out and spend, spend, spend.

1st, get a solid SP to fill Garland's spot. Whether it's Derek Lowe or Matt Clement or even Carl Pavano, SPEND THE MONEY!

2nd, find someone to fill Carlos Lee's spot. I'd love it to be Carlos Beltran, but that's pretty much impossible. A left handed slugger wouldn't hurt, possibly Jeromy Burnitez?

3rd, fill the bullpen with reliable arms. Eddie Guardado is now available, possibly looking into getting him along with Curtis Leskanic wouldn't hurt.

4th, if they go through all this, put together a solid roster, 1-25, solid enough to win the division and by God somehow solid enough to win the pennant and possibly the... gulp... World Series, then he can turn around and sell the team for $300mill or whatever the hell it'll be worth after he brings a World Series to Chicago! The team will be priceless, all the fair weather fans will be White Sox fans, sellouts will be frequent, and the southside won't seem "so bad" after all.

The bottom line is, if JR puts up with a year of $10-$20mill in losses and let's KW spend, he can turn around and make that loss multiplied by 50 when he sells the team after they win the World Series.
:roflmao:

Tragg
11-01-2004, 11:58 PM
This is the type of deal you make when you have the rest of the pieces in place. One problem - WE DON'T. Boston did.
If we make that deal, we immediately have a well below-average offensive ballclub. Too many holes to win a WS. After all, how many games did AZ win this year - meaning he can't do it alone?
Who's our lead-off hitter? Vizquel? Only in Williams-world in which lip service is given to OBP and .340 high OBP is considered lead-off material. Give me a break



Too much of our budget on 1 player, while holes galore remain. Our up the middle defense remains putrid, the offense will be a poor obp, low power in a power ballpark.
This trade would set us back further, because it will preclude us from solving many of our real problems. But it will help JR's PR, it will bring fans in, but will bring us no WS.

A lineup with Carl Everett, Gload, Ben Davis----Our big bench player is that clutch-hitting Timo Perez and his .280 OBP. That's winning a WS??? I don't think so. More like a 78 win ballclub.

And when he figures out his budget, he better include the cost of wheelchairs and walkers.
How about filling our holes with quality young players KW

hitlesswonder
11-02-2004, 12:14 AM
Can someone explain the logic of trading Johnson for a package including Konerko or Lee from Arizona's perspective?

If they are rebuilding, they have no use for Konerko who is in the last year of his contract. Lee has an option for '06, but slugging outfielders (Conor Jackson, Carlos Quentin) are the strength of their farm system.
Honestly, I'm not sure. But the media made it seem like Johnson was not happy in AZ last year, and it could be there's just bad blood between him and the team now. I've read that Williams hasn't really wanted Thomas on the Sox, so it's not like teams always rationally assess situations regarding their best players. I know Newsday or the NY Post (paragons of journalism that they are) have said that Sexson likely won't resign. If that's the case and the D'Backs think they can contend next year, they might be interested in Konerko. Or maybe a 3-way trade could somehow work with konerko/Lee going for more young pitching for AZ.

If it is just a salary dump, I can't imagine them taking a big contract. They would have to want Rowand instead of the other 2 IMO. And any package, salary dump or not, would I think have to include more young pitching than just Garland (maybe McCarthy or Cotts?).

batmanZoSo
11-02-2004, 12:56 AM
Garland's fit to make 3 mil and Carlos at 8, right? If we could get AZ to take a little of Unit's salary, this would be outstanding.

:reinsy

If?...uh-hahaha.

Mohoney
11-02-2004, 12:59 AM
If Johnson is replacing Garland, based on 2004:

we get 3 more CG, 4 more 7+IP games, 28.2 more IP overall (almost an extra inning per start), and 10 more quality starts. Plus, the massive increase in strikeouts would put less pressure on the defense. Not bad at all, but I don't know if it's worth giving up Lee or Konerko's production on top of Garland's. Seeing as little as possible of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and possibly 7th (if we carry 12 pitchers) options in our bullpen is definitely a good thing, but we are talking about giving up a quality bat in either of these two guys. Plus, unless Diaz or Grilli steps up and has a gangbusters spring, our 5th starter carousel continues unabated if we look to replace Garland from within the organization.

Now, if either Lee or Konerko becomes the centerpiece of the deal, and Garland and Contreras duke it out for the right to be #4 with the loser going to #5, we get it all pitching-wise. All 5 of our starters could give 200+ innings, and our top 3 could all give 250+ innings. Johnson's a lock for 250+ strikeouts, Garcia could give you 200 and is a lock for 180, and Buehrle and Contreras will each chip in about 150 apiece. However, Arizona might insist on Garland being in the deal. Lee or Konerko plus prospects doesn't sound like the best deal Arizona can get, and somebody else might trump us by offering a more attractive package centered around a quality bat AND an experienced major league pitcher.

Pros and cons are plentiful on either side. I would do a Lee/Konerko plus Garland deal, but it is certainly not a no-brainer move. If we got Johnson and gave the 5th spot to Grilli or Diaz, we would really have to ride our top 3 pitchers hard, to the tune of about 15+ combined CG.

I would rather do a Konerko/Lee plus prospects deal (a no-brainer, in my opinion) and gamble on Garland as my #5, but I don't know if ownership would authorize such a payroll hike.

A.T. Money
11-02-2004, 01:06 AM
Sending Mr. Jonny "Corpseball" Garland to the DBacks with CLee for the Unit? You gotta do this!

Lee was good, but we should have dumped Garland when we had the chance (for Erstad).

OurBitchinMinny
11-02-2004, 01:21 AM
no way i do that deal. Randy johnson is 40 years old and had some bad outings this year. Id give up garland and something else, but not lee or konerko. And im not completely ready to give up on garland yet. I just know he will be a guy that goes to another orginization and thrives. THen people will be all over KW for that trade.

A.T. Money
11-02-2004, 01:35 AM
no way i do that deal. Randy johnson is 40 years old and had some bad outings this year. Id give up garland and something else, but not lee or konerko. And im not completely ready to give up on garland yet. I just know he will be a guy that goes to another orginization and thrives. THen people will be all over KW for that trade.
When was the last time anyone on the White Sox threw a perfect game? Or a No Hitter for that matter?

Dude....you make this move. This is the kind of marquee player that brings in the fans. Johnson IMO is showing no signs of slowing down. He still is up there in Ks year after year.

Mohoney
11-02-2004, 02:03 AM
no way i do that deal. Randy johnson is 40 years old and had some bad outings this year. Id give up garland and something else, but not lee or konerko. And im not completely ready to give up on garland yet. I just know he will be a guy that goes to another orginization and thrives. THen people will be all over KW for that trade.
On the flipside, he led the majors in quality starts and strikeouts, two very important categories.

This is a very tough trade to analyze.

batmanZoSo
11-02-2004, 02:28 AM
On the flipside, he led the majors in quality starts and strikeouts, two very important categories.

This is a very tough trade to analyze.

I would do it. You replace Garland with any number of .500 or better veterans and we can easily replace Lee. In fact, I don't think there will be room for him in a few years in the outfield. Johnson brings in a ton of fans and publicity and you have a chance to possibly ride his coattails to a World Series. I think we're at a point in losing that we don't quibble over Jon Garlands and Carlos Lees if we have a real shot at doing something big and special.

ChiWhiteSox1337
11-02-2004, 03:03 AM
I don't know what to think about this, I'm split on it. If JR decides to open up the pocket book, I really like this. I think there's a chance of him finally spending some major $ on the team. During the season this year, we got Freddy Garcia and gave him an extension and we also acquired Contreras, who still has a few years left on his contract. The White Sox were also rumored to be interested in some high $ guys around the trade deadline such as Delgado, Walker, and Randy Johnson. The acquisitions and rumored-acquisitions shows that the White Sox were willing to add some major payroll to improve the team. If JR was willing to do it during the season, HE SHOULD BE WILLING TO DO IT THIS OFFSEASON AS WELL!!!!

If we were to give up Garland and Carlos Lee(again, just an if because we don't know who's in the deal) we would still have some gaps to fill in. Lip said it best earlier with his 9-15 stat from the 5th spot. It doesn't matter how good your 1-4 pitchers are, it doesn't make up for the lack of production from the 5th spot. It's never good for a team's chemistry when you know you're going to lose every 5th day. It won't be a problem if JR opens up the pocket book because there are quite a few pitchers on the market this year. We'd also have a big gapping hole in the outfield unless you like the thought of Gload, Rowand, and Everett roaming the OF. It doesn't matter how solid your pitching staff is, you still need to score runs.

So in my opinion, if JR is willing to spend money to acquire an OF, 5th SP, SS, and bullpen arm, I would absolutely love the trade. If the White Sox only acquire RJ and leave quite a few holes in the line up, I don't really see the point of the trade because the White Sox would just finish in 2nd place again. :(:

StillMissOzzie
11-02-2004, 03:26 AM
Lee was good, but we should have dumped Garland when we had the chance (for Erstad).
I thought that it was the Angels who nixed this deal, not the Sox.

SMO

gosox41
11-02-2004, 08:56 AM
I thought that it was the Angels who nixed this deal, not the Sox.

SMO
It was the Angels.

And as disappoing as Garland has been, Erstad is one of the most overrated players in all of baseball.


Bob

A.T. Money
11-02-2004, 11:04 AM
It was the Angels.

And as disappoing as Garland has been, Erstad is one of the most overrated players in all of baseball.


Bob
Yeah but at least he produces. What has Garland ever done? He's a mental midget.

California Sox
11-02-2004, 11:12 AM
I'm in the vast minority on this deal. I think you get Johnson IF you're one player away. The Sox are one player injury away from winning 72 games. I believe the team needs to rebuild to a certain extent. KW has tried to push this core and go for a championship and they couldn't get it done. Now you subtract Maggs and Jose from that group... It just does not seem credible that they are going to be in the top tier of teams in the AL next year. I hope I'm wrong.

gosox41
11-02-2004, 12:19 PM
Yeah but at least he produces. What has Garland ever done? He's a mental midget.
Garalnd at times is a mental midget. But there was a mental midget who decided it would be a good idea to trade a cherap, young pitcher for an OFer coming off one good year making $8.5 mill. This mental midget then wanted to sign this OFer to a contract extension of all things. Lucky for the Sox, the Angels backed out and Erstad and his big salary isn't here.

As much as Garland has struggled he has more value to a team then an injury prone, overrated, OFer who has had one great year in his career and has been decidedly average to below average since.


Bob

A.T. Money
11-02-2004, 12:46 PM
Garalnd at times is a mental midget. But there was a mental midget who decided it would be a good idea to trade a cherap, young pitcher for an OFer coming off one good year making $8.5 mill. This mental midget then wanted to sign this OFer to a contract extension of all things. Lucky for the Sox, the Angels backed out and Erstad and his big salary isn't here.

As much as Garland has struggled he has more value to a team then an injury prone, overrated, OFer who has had one great year in his career and has been decidedly average to below average since.


Bob
Yeah but Garland has consistently sucked. At least Erstad had 1 good season, and he also has a ring BTW.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 12:58 PM
Yeah but Garland has consistently sucked. At least Erstad had 1 good season, and he also has a ring BTW.Garland was tied for 19th in the AL in wins with such other sucky pitchers as Mike Mussina and Tim Hudson. He was 27th in ERA, which, if you figure 5 starters x 14 teams = 70 total starters, puts him better than 61% of the other starters. Pretty crappy, all right.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 01:00 PM
Just found this relevant article on ESPN.com discussing the Randy Johnson/Richie Sexson situation in Arizona.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1914399

GAsoxfan
11-02-2004, 03:17 PM
Although the thought of seeing the Big Unit in a Sox uni is tempting, I'd rather see KW try to make a deal for one of Oakland's Big Three. Find a team that has some prospects Beane likes, trade Konerko/Lee for the prospects, and then trade the prospects (and maybe one of our own) for Zito/Mulder/Hudson. They're over a decade younger than Randy, would cost less (both in trade value and salary), and are still front of the rotation starters.

It would allow the Sox to gain a front of the rotation starter while doing less damage to the big club than if they traded for Johnson.

A.T. Money
11-02-2004, 03:22 PM
Garland was tied for 19th in the AL in wins with such other sucky pitchers as Mike Mussina and Tim Hudson. He was 27th in ERA, which, if you figure 5 starters x 14 teams = 70 total starters, puts him better than 61% of the other starters. Pretty crappy, all right.
I don't care what the numbers are. If that's all you look at, then I feel sorry for you.

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 03:27 PM
If were going to play "pick out your favorite Garland stat," I'll go with him giving up the 4th most homers in the AL with 34.

FightingBillini
11-02-2004, 03:28 PM
Although the thought of seeing the Big Unit in a Sox uni is tempting, I'd rather see KW try to make a deal for one of Oakland's Big Three. Find a team that has some prospects Beane likes, trade Konerko/Lee for the prospects, and then trade the prospects (and maybe one of our own) for Zito/Mulder/Hudson. They're over a decade younger than Randy, would cost less (both in trade value and salary), and are still front of the rotation starters.

It would allow the Sox to gain a front of the rotation starter while doing less damage to the big club than if they traded for Johnson.
Actually, becuase they are yonger and make much much less money. Therefore, they are much more valuable in trades, and would require loads more than Johnson.

nodiggity59
11-02-2004, 03:35 PM
Garland was tied for 19th in the AL in wins with such other sucky pitchers as Mike Mussina and Tim Hudson. He was 27th in ERA, which, if you figure 5 starters x 14 teams = 70 total starters, puts him better than 61% of the other starters. Pretty crappy, all right.
Jon Garland is not a reliable starter, period. His future may be brighter but he was definitely not one last year.

With regards to his numbers, to me that is the whole problem with Garland. He's a headcase who is worse than his numbers/makeup/stuff would indicate. His propensity for the big inning (which shows a lack of mental toughness and control, not of ability) is a perfect example of his inconsistency/unreliability. Also, his constant walking of batters by nibbling is from poor approach and mentality, not from a lack of command/control.

Jon Garland is the definition of a head case and until he isn't, he will always be less valuable than his numbers indicate.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 03:45 PM
Although the thought of seeing the Big Unit in a Sox uni is tempting, I'd rather see KW try to make a deal for one of Oakland's Big Three. Find a team that has some prospects Beane likes, trade Konerko/Lee for the prospects, and then trade the prospects (and maybe one of our own) for Zito/Mulder/Hudson. They're over a decade younger than Randy, would cost less (both in trade value and salary), and are still front of the rotation starters.

It would allow the Sox to gain a front of the rotation starter while doing less damage to the big club than if they traded for Johnson.We can speculate all we want, but there's no way of knowing exactly what it would take to get one of these guys in trade. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if you could get Johnson for about the same price as Mulder or Hudson (don't want Zito). AZ is a really motivated seller. Also, Johnson can veto a trade, which limits the number of teams that can make a deal. If AZ is looking for a 1B, who else on RJ's short list has one that would be willing to part with him? All these limitations make a trade more difficult, and ultimately reduce the price AZ can get for him. Then there's the age issue, which may depress Johnson's price. All things considered, I'm not convinced the price would be much different.

The other question you raise is a deeper one. Would you rather have RJ for a few years or Mulder or Hudson for a longer time? If you got Johnson, you might sign him to an extension for no more than you'd pay Mulder or Hudson, but realistically, he's not going to pitch more than a few more years. Mulder or Hudson could be a mainstay of the rotation for a long time. In the end, I think I would choose Johnson for one simple reason. Even if they got Mulder or Hudson, they're not going to sign him to more than a 2 or 3 year deal anyway. Johnson might have 2 or maybe three years left in him. So even though Mulder and Hudson are younger, they're not realistically going to tie them up for much longer than they would have Johnson anyway. Johnson is so much better, that I think you have to go with him if you can swing the deal.

idseer
11-02-2004, 03:53 PM
You guys would give up all that for an over 40 pitcher?


What is going on?


i know i wouldn't
i haven't read this whole thread so i may be repeating other thoughts but ...

i can see it now. we get a half good season out of randy (all for naught of course because the sox will finish in 3rd anyway) and ten years from now carlos will still be smacking .285/30/90 for the washington criminals! while the sox are making do with 42 year old manny ramirez (whom we just acquired).

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 03:55 PM
We can speculate all we want, but there's no way of knowing exactly what it would take to get one of these guys in trade. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if you could get Johnson for about the same price as Mulder or Hudson (don't want Zito). AZ is a really motivated seller. Also, Johnson can veto a trade, which limits the number of teams that can make a deal. If AZ is looking for a 1B, who else on RJ's short list has one that would be willing to part with him? All these limitations make a trade more difficult, and ultimately reduce the price AZ can get for him. Then there's the age issue, which may depress Johnson's price. All things considered, I'm not convinced the price would be much different.


Add in "that AZ would want in return". I'm almost certain that the Spankees would do a Giambi-RJ deal in a heartbeat, but the DBacks would want no part of that contract.

I hope what you say is true, since Koney's $8mil & RJ's $10mil are close enough that the deael seems feasible financially. I also assume that if they deal for him, they can work something with him regarding the rumored "undeferring" of the deferred $6mil if he's traded.

idseer
11-02-2004, 03:57 PM
I can't believe some of the comments regarding this deal:

"Yeah, it gives us a top of the rotation starter, BUT we have no 5th/poor offense"

Hello? McFly? Think McFly.
just keep in mind who you are quoting here. was the person who said "Hello? McFly? Think McFly" anyone we should listen to? i think not!

Foulke29
11-02-2004, 04:01 PM
Look at the recent WS winners:

BoSox- Schilling, Pedro
Marlins- Beckett
Angels- (exception)
DBacks- Schilling + Johnson
Yankees - (98-00) Clemens, Pettite, others I can't recall
Braves- Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux

See a pattern? Some may cringe to trade away Carlos, seeing as how he can be good for us for many years, but I think this shows he can't win us jack without one of these types of pitchers.

If we get Johnson, I think we finally have a WS contending pitching rotation. Think about that. Isn't it better to grab the arms first and hope everything shakes out later? Even the Flubs, with their mediocre offense and poor bullpen, came close to the WS 03.
Just remember, we have 162 games before the post season to make a respectable record out of. Bottom line is you still have to score runs for the stellar pitching staff, and I'm not so sure Unit is the same pitcher in U.S. Cellular as he is in Arizona. Look at his record from 2004.

As for Anaheim, make no mistake about it, they had the starting pitching that year. Washburn, Ramon Ortiz, Appier and Sele were all pretty good guys to have for your front four.

I think you're on to something, but I think it's the wrong pattern that you pointed out:

2004: Foulke, Timlin, Embree (where'd he come from?)
2003: Fox, Looper, Urbina
2002: Percival, K-Rod, Lackey, Donnelly, Weber; F
2001: Kim (okay - this one goes to Unit and Schilling)
2000: Nelson, Stanton, Rivera
1999: Nelson, Mendoza, Rivera, Stanton
1998: Nelson, Mendoza, Rivera, Stanton
1997: Livan, Nen
1996: Mendoza, Nelson, Rivera, Wettland, Wickman

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 04:08 PM
Jon Garland is not a reliable starter, period. His future may be brighter but he was definitely not one last year.

With regards to his numbers, to me that is the whole problem with Garland. He's a headcase who is worse than his numbers/makeup/stuff would indicate. His propensity for the big inning (which shows a lack of mental toughness and control, not of ability) is a perfect example of his inconsistency/unreliability. Also, his constant walking of batters by nibbling is from poor approach and mentality, not from a lack of command/control.

Jon Garland is the definition of a head case and until he isn't, he will always be less valuable than his numbers indicate.It seems people are suffering from a bad case of if-he's-ours-he-must-suck-itis. Yes, his nibbling drives me nuts, too. But in the end, it's about winning, and as long as he wins, I really don't care how many HR's he gives up, or how many BB. A few other Garland stats and his AL ranking:

Wins: 12 (t 18th)
Quality starts: 16 (t 18th)
WHIP: 1.38 (19th)
ERA: 4.89 (27th)
OBA: .269 (21st)
OBP: .328 (19th)
SLG: .455 (30th)

These aren't the stats of a crappy pitcher. They're not All-Star stuff, but he's pretty solidly near in the middle third of the AL. I don't know if he'll ever win 15, but you can pretty much count on him to go 12-12, which isn't bad. Truth is, he would almost certainly would be no lower than 4th on most teams' rotations.

GAsoxfan
11-02-2004, 04:14 PM
I think you're on to something, but I think it's the wrong pattern that you pointed out:

2004: Foulke, Timlin, Embree (where'd he come from?)
2003: Fox, Looper, Urbina
2002: Percival, K-Rod, Lackey, Donnelly, Weber; F
2001: Kim (okay - this one goes to Unit and Schilling)
2000: Nelson, Stanton, Rivera
1999: Nelson, Mendoza, Rivera, Stanton
1998: Nelson, Mendoza, Rivera, Stanton
1997: Livan, Nen
1996: Mendoza, Nelson, Rivera, Wettland, Wickman
The Sox need two relievers to make it a solid pen. My choices would be Kline and Benitez. A top four of Benitez, Shingo, Kline, and Marte would be one of the best bullpens in the majors.

nodiggity59
11-02-2004, 04:18 PM
The Sox need two relievers to make it a solid pen. My choices would be Kline and Benitez. A top four of Benitez, Shingo, Kline, and Marte would be one of the best bullpens in the majors.
Too bad we'll get neither!! Kline is coveted by the Yanks AND BoSox. Benitez is a possibility, but I envision him more likely with the Flubs or Giants. Percival is out there too though...and he wants to close.

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 04:19 PM
The Sox need two relievers to make it a solid pen. My choices would be Kline and Benitez. A top four of Benitez, Shingo, Kline, and Marte would be one of the best bullpens in the majors.It doesn't really matter, no one's really going to be happy unless they sign Beltran, Drew, Pavano, Benitez, & Kline and trade Konerko and Garland for RJ.

Anything else is just more proof that JR is cheap.:rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 04:21 PM
Add in "that AZ would want in return". I'm almost certain that the Spankees would do a Giambi-RJ deal in a heartbeat, but the DBacks would want no part of that contract.No kidding. Giambi is a stone that they're going to be stuck with for a good long time.

I really don't know for sure the details of RJ's contract and if the deferred money becomes "undeferred" if he's traded. That obviously has an impact. I'm also going on the assumption that what's driving this deal is not just the D-backs wanting to move Johnson, but their desire for a 1B to replace Sexson. It sounds like he doesn't want to re-sign with them. The rumor of CLee makes no sense to me, since they have Gonzo coming back to play LF, unless they're planning on moving one of them to 1B. But given a choice I would think they would much rather have a regular 1B than count on someone learning a new position.

If Pedro leaves Boston, they will probably want to go after Johnson, but the Yankees will go all out to try to prevent that like they did with Colon. Kenny's always been a wheeler-dealer, so he might be able to take advantage of the situation. This could be a very interesting show to watch unfold.

Paulwny
11-02-2004, 04:22 PM
[QUOTE=Flight #24]Add in "that AZ would want in return". I'm almost certain that the Spankees would do a Giambi-RJ deal in a heartbeat, but the DBacks would want no part of that contract.
QUOTE]

Latest rumor, Newark Star Ledger, yanks may be willing to trade Posada for RJ and then try to sign Varitek or trade for Kendall.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 04:24 PM
The Sox need two relievers to make it a solid pen. My choices would be Kline and Benitez. A top four of Benitez, Shingo, Kline, and Marte would be one of the best bullpens in the majors.What about Scott Williamson? He had some elbow problems, but he pitched well after he came back in September. It would be a risk, but that would also keep his price down. If they could get him on an incentive contract, say $1M + another $1M if he stays healthy, with an option on a second year, I'd take a chance on him.

GAsoxfan
11-02-2004, 04:27 PM
It doesn't really matter, no one's really going to be happy unless they sign Beltran, Drew, Pavano, Benitez, & Kline and trade Konerko and Garland for RJ.

Anything else is just more proof that JR is cheap.:rolleyes:
That would be a nice start!

But in reality, I think if the Sox signed a couple quality relievers, and one #2/3 starter they could win the division. Until Frank went down, the Sox were winning the division last year with no 5th starter and a weak pen. If we fix those two problems, the Sox will be in the playoff hunt.

GAsoxfan
11-02-2004, 04:28 PM
What about Scott Williamson? He had some elbow problems, but he pitched well after he came back in September. It would be a risk, but that would also keep his price down. If they could get him on an incentive contract, say $1M + another $1M if he stays healthy, with an option on a second year, I'd take a chance on him.
I thought I heard Williamson had to have surgery again, and was going to miss most of next year. I could be wrong.

idseer
11-02-2004, 04:28 PM
some after age 40 hall of famers (most never made it to 40) ...

larry carlton 16-37
fergie jenkins 6-9
gaylord perry 47-59
nolan ryan 71-66
tom seaver 23-24

ryan's probably the exception and even he was little better than a .500 pitcher.

at 41 johnson IS going to deteriorate ... quickly. it's a fact of life!

and you want to give up TWO starters ages 25 and 28 for that? :?:

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 04:32 PM
I thought I heard Williamson had to have surgery again, and was going to miss most of next year. I could be wrong.Yep. A SECOND Tommy John surgery. Will miss all of next season. Never mind.:(:

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 04:37 PM
you want to give up TWO starters ages 25 and 28 for that? :?:I didn't realize age was the most important factor with Major League baseball players. Would you take Carlos Lee over Barry Bonds?
Johnson at 41> Garland at 25
I wouldn't give up Lee because we don't have the depth to replace him in LF (Gload is a first baseman, please keep him out of the outfield,) and he has a team option for 2006.

idseer
11-02-2004, 04:40 PM
I didn't realize age was the most important factor with Major League baseball players. Would you take Carlos Lee over Barry Bonds?
Johnson at 41> Garland at 25
I wouldn't give up Lee because we don't have the depth to replace him in LF (Gload is a first baseman, please keep him out of the outfield,) and he has a team option for 2006.age is a very important factor when it's so disparate. and no, i would NOT take bonds for lee.
and in a year i would not take unit for garland either.

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 04:47 PM
age is a very important factor when it's so disparate. and no, i would NOT take bonds for lee.
and in a year i would not take unit for garland either.
You would rather have Carlos Lee over BARRY BONDS??? :kukoo:
How do you explain Randy Johnson having one of his best years at the age of 40 last season?

nodiggity59
11-02-2004, 04:49 PM
i would NOT take bonds for lee.

:roflmao:

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 04:50 PM
I didn't realize age was the most important factor with Major League baseball players. Would you take Carlos Lee over Barry Bonds?
Johnson at 41> Garland at 25
I wouldn't give up Lee because we don't have the depth to replace him in LF (Gload is a first baseman, please keep him out of the outfield,) and he has a team option for 2006.There are a number of good FA OF available to replace Carlos in LF, if needed. JD Drew would obviously be the primo choice, but there are others. Todd Hollandsworth might be a nice pickup. Jeromy Burnitz, Moises Alou are also possibilities. They're not as good as CLee, but I could live with these guys with RJ on the mound every 5th day.

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 04:55 PM
There are a number of good FA OF available to replace Carlos in LF, if needed. JD Drew would obviously be the primo choice, but there are others. Todd Hollandsworth might be a nice pickup. Jeromy Burnitz, Moises Alou are also possibilities. They're not as good as CLee, but I could live with these guys with RJ on the mound every 5th day.But wait, Burnitz is old and says he'll retire if doesn't sign a new deal with the Rockies. Alou is old and has an injury history, and will probably play for his father if the Giants don't sign Maggs. JD Drew would cost more than CLee, has an injury history, and is represented by Scott Boras. Todd Hollandsworth was having a nice year with teh Cubs until he got hurt, but in recent history he has not been an everyday player.

idseer
11-02-2004, 05:05 PM
laugh all you like. you think trading away a potential star player just coming into his prime for a 41 year old bonds makes sense that's your business, but i believe you're :kukoo: .

no matter how good a year he had history proves over and over again you soon disappear after 40. it's a fact!

same goes for johnson. i will NOT trade away youth for 'old' age unless that youth isn't any good.

the exception MIGHT be if we thought we had a legitimate shot at a title and we needed one more piece to get us there. if you really think the sox have a shot next season you are out of your collective gourds!

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 05:11 PM
laugh all you like. you think trading away a potential star player just coming into his prime for a 41 year old bonds makes sense that's your business, but i believe you're :kukoo: .

no matter how good a year he had history proves over and over again you soon disappear after 40. it's a fact!

same goes for johnson. i will NOT trade away youth for 'old' age unless that youth isn't any good.

the exception MIGHT be if we thought we had a legitimate shot at a title and we needed one more piece to get us there. if you really think the sox have a shot next season you are out of your collective gourds!
I will almost guarantee you that over the next 3 years, Bonds has better stats than CLee. Can you imagine a lineup with Bonds & Thomas? Frightening.

The only caveat is if he gets suspended for 'Roids.

nodiggity59
11-02-2004, 05:16 PM
[QUOTE=idseer]no matter how good a year he had history proves over and over again you soon disappear after 40. it's a fact!

QUOTE]

Hiistory also proves a lot of players who look like they're headed to prolonged stardom go down the $hithole. Albert Belle anyone? Giambi? Andruw Jones?

Bonds passed that test so I'll take him over CLee. But what the hell are we talking about anyway?

idseer
11-02-2004, 05:16 PM
I will almost guarantee you that over the next 3 years, Bonds has better stats than CLee. Can you imagine a lineup with Bonds & Thomas? Frightening.

The only caveat is if he gets suspended for 'Roids.
actually you cannot guarantee anything of the sort.
only time will tell.

i really wish it was a simple matter to save this kind of statement and throw it back at you next year or the next.

we shall see. :smile:

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 05:26 PM
laugh all you like. you think trading away a potential star player just coming into his prime for a 41 year old bonds makes sense that's your business, but i believe you're :kukoo: .

no matter how good a year he had history proves over and over again you soon disappear after 40. it's a fact!

same goes for johnson. i will NOT trade away youth for 'old' age unless that youth isn't any good.

the exception MIGHT be if we thought we had a legitimate shot at a title and we needed one more piece to get us there. if you really think the sox have a shot next season you are out of your collective gourds!I don't think anyone's planning on having RJ around for 5 more years. But he sure isn't showing any signs of slowing down real soon, either. And CLee has only one year left on his contract with an option for 2006 (not sure of the option terms), so he could "disappear" soon, too. With free agency being what it is, the days when you can plan on having players around long-term are gone, except in a few rare cases.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 05:35 PM
But wait, Burnitz is old and says he'll retire if doesn't sign a new deal with the Rockies. Alou is old and has an injury history, and will probably play for his father if the Giants don't sign Maggs. JD Drew would cost more than CLee, has an injury history, and is represented by Scott Boras. Todd Hollandsworth was having a nice year with teh Cubs until he got hurt, but in recent history he has not been an everyday player.Hollandsworth is a career .279 hitter. He hasn't been an everyday player, but per 162 games played he's hit 15 HR and 60 RBI. Not spectacular, but...serviceable. And a lefty to break up the string of righties. Teams have won WS with players like this.

idseer
11-02-2004, 05:37 PM
I don't think anyone's planning on having RJ around for 5 more years. But he sure isn't showing any signs of slowing down real soon, either. And CLee has only one year left on his contract with an option for 2006 (not sure of the option terms), so he could "disappear" soon, too. With free agency being what it is, the days when you can plan on having players around long-term are gone, except in a few rare cases.
lol you don't 'show signs of slowing down until you slow down. it'll happen .... soon!

if the sox were ever in the free agency market with any authority i might agree with you, but let's remember who we're a fan of.
i'll take my chances with resigning lee.

Tragg
11-03-2004, 12:59 AM
I'm in the vast minority on this deal. I think you get Johnson IF you're one player away. The Sox are one player injury away from winning 72 games. I believe the team needs to rebuild to a certain extent. KW has tried to push this core and go for a championship and they couldn't get it done. Now you subtract Maggs and Jose from that group... It just does not seem credible that they are going to be in the top tier of teams in the AL next year. I hope I'm wrong. Well, you're not a minority of 1 - I agree; I think we need to re-tool but not go through a total rebuilding.
As for Garland in other posts, we're talking about a 5th starter for next year. We won't do any better.

Tragg
11-03-2004, 01:02 AM
I would do it. You replace Garland with any number of .500 or better veterans and we can easily replace Lee. In fact, I don't think there will be room for him in a few years in the outfield. Johnson brings in a ton of fans and publicity and you have a chance to possibly ride his coattails to a World Series. I think we're at a point in losing that we don't quibble over Jon Garlands and Carlos Lees if we have a real shot at doing something big and special.Okay
Who do you have in mind to replace Lee? What about Magglio? (I hope Carl Everett isn't one of the options) Who's our fifth starter? Who leads off? Who's going to catch the ball at C, SS, 2b and CF? What about our bench?

Perfect games, no hitters all equal one win. Johnson's been on a number of playoff teams and has one ring and one WS appearance I think. Nolan Ryan doesn't have any (except with the mets early in his career). Last year Johnson's team barely won 50 games. Not dissing him, just saying he needs a nice supporting cast - which he had in Arizona which was one deep, deep team.

gosox41
11-03-2004, 09:17 AM
Yeah but Garland has consistently sucked. At least Erstad had 1 good season, and he also has a ring BTW.
SO you want to pay a guy $8.5 mill for one good year?


Bob

Ol' No. 2
11-05-2004, 05:19 PM
Based on info I got from a friend in Arizona, Richie Sexson is almost sure to be gone. The D-backs wanted incentives in the contract, and Sexson wanted no part of that. If Sexson leaves, RJ is going to be a lot more eager to go. They're also not that high on the Posada deal. They're not unhappy with the two kids they have behind the plate, and they view SS, CF and 1B as bigger needs.

As far as deferred compensation for RJ, it is $6M (don't know how long), and there are no easter eggs in his contract making it immediately payable. The D-backs are now paying tons of money in deferred compensation to players no longer on their roster, and will be for 7 more years. (I guess that's why that rule was put in.)

The trouble is, they've gotten their shorts all knotted up with this Wally Backman fiasco, so any trade talks may be on hold for a while.