PDA

View Full Version : Teams making offers for "Big Unit"


infohawk
11-17-2004, 02:05 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511990/

soltrain21
11-17-2004, 02:07 PM
Looks like our offer is the strongest out of those 3.

DaveIsHere
11-17-2004, 02:11 PM
hhhmmm, that still leaves a hole in the rotation, Oh I forgot about that ace Grilli!!!

SoxxoS
11-17-2004, 02:15 PM
If Grilli is our fifth starter...even with Randy Johnson...we aren't winning the division, I will say that RIGHT NOW. If JR and KW haven't learned in the past 4 years, then...well, I don't know what I am going to do. But it won't be good!

Soxzilla
11-17-2004, 02:15 PM
Looks like our offer is the strongest out of those 3.

Our offer blows those other ones out of the water. Unless Ankiel decides to play the field ... :rolleyes:

Randar68
11-17-2004, 02:16 PM
Looks like our offer is the strongest out of those 3.
Not sure on that. If Arizona wants a big salary windfall, they'll look at that St. Louis offer. Konerko + Garland = ~10 million next year, no?

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:19 PM
Not sure on that. If Arizona wants a big salary windfall, they'll look at that St. Louis offer. Konerko + Garland = ~10 million next year, no?
Yes it is, but PK is off the books in '06 and is gives them an opportunity to sign him to a longer term deal for less per year.....

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:19 PM
They better offer a better pitcher then the headcase Garland if they want this to get done.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:20 PM
They better offer a better pitcher then the headcase Garland if they want this to get done.
Garland might not be that bad in the NL, actualy. No DH, and generally weaker lineups....

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:23 PM
Garland might not be that bad in the NL, actualy. No DH, and generally weaker lineups....
True. But I feel that Arizona will ask for Buerhle or Garcia to be the pitcher of choice. I would not want Garland.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:23 PM
They better offer a better pitcher then the headcase Garland if they want this to get done.Thanks for your opinion Mr. Negative! Please give us another insightful post!

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:24 PM
True. But I feel that Arizona will ask for Buerhle or Garcia to be the pitcher of choice. I would not want Garland.:)

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:24 PM
If this trade happened. Who would be the leading candidate for 1B next year? Frank, or Gload?

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:25 PM
Thanks for your opinion Mr. Negative! Please give us another insightful post!Just having a bad day. I am truly baffled with the Orodnez situation.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:25 PM
If this trade happened. Who would be the leading candidate for 1B next year? Frank, or Gload?
Unfortunately, Gload.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:25 PM
If this trade happened. Who would be the leading candidate for 1B next year? Frank, or Gload?Ross Choad with Frank as our DH if he gets healthy.

samram
11-17-2004, 02:26 PM
True. But I feel that Arizona will ask for Buerhle or Garcia to be the pitcher of choice. I would not want Garland.
If that's the type of package they're looking for, we can all look forward to another season of RJ with a 2.4 ERA and 14 wins in AZ.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:27 PM
Just having a bad day. I am truly baffled with the Orodnez situation.Maggs didn't want to play for us anyways. He got offered a good deal and he declined. Him getting Boras indicated that he is just going for a big payday that he probably isn't worth. Don't worry about that toolbox.

Randar68
11-17-2004, 02:29 PM
True. But I feel that Arizona will ask for Buerhle or Garcia to be the pitcher of choice. I would not want Garland.
Steve Stone as GM and Arizona asking for Buehrle or Garcia? You are in some other world, man.

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 02:31 PM
Unfortunately, Gload.
I don't think it's so unfortunate. I think he is a very good defensive first baseman and hitting .321 in 110 games last year isn't too shabby, IMHO. However, I never, ever, ever, ever want to see him in the outfield again!

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:32 PM
I don't think it's so unfortunate. I think he is a very good defensive first baseman and hitting .321 in 110 games last year isn't too shabby, IMHO. However, I never, ever, ever, ever want to see him in the outfield again!
Hey, we agree!:)

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:34 PM
Steve Stone as GM and Arizona asking for Buehrle or Garcia? You are in some other world, man.
Sorry, the Buerhle Garcia was supposed to be in teal. However, I would still not want the likes of Garland.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 02:36 PM
Yes it is, but PK is off the books in '06 and is gives them an opportunity to sign him to a longer term deal for less per year.....Johnson's off the books next year too, so that's a wash. But remember, they also have Sexson's money available, which pretty much offsets PK. Overall, a significant net reduction.

Don't count out the Yankees, yet. Even if the D-backs don't want Vazquez, they might be able to work out a 3-way to get it done.

Baby Fisk
11-17-2004, 02:37 PM
I don't think it's so unfortunate. I think he is a very good defensive first baseman and hitting .321 in 110 games last year isn't too shabby, IMHO. However, I never, ever, ever, ever want to see him in the outfield again!
Agreed. Gload at 1B is hardly a notion that should induce projectile vomiting. He'll be fine. :cool:

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 02:38 PM
Hey, we agree!:)How about that? :wired:

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:39 PM
Unit
Buerhle
Garcia
Contreras
Grilli?

4 and 5 still blow. KW must solidify 4 and 5 or RJ makes no difference.

lowesox
11-17-2004, 02:39 PM
Put me down as being against this trade, regardless of who we give up. A 40+ strikeout pitcher is just too much of an injury risk.

I would think there would be more out who shared this opinion, given how Frank and Maggs' injuries last year affected this team.

pinwheels3530
11-17-2004, 02:42 PM
Would Randy approve the trade to the Sox over the Cardinals? I think Randy no. 1 choice would be to play in St.Louis.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 02:43 PM
My ideal scenario is to pull off this trade, sign Lieber to round out the rotation and trade for either Kendall or Pierre. They could do this within their budget and still have a little left over for bullpen help. I would be very :smile: going into 2005 with this team. Problem is, Konerko and Garland are the main tradable commodities and you can't trade them twice. If they pull off the RJ trade, I don't know that they have enough left to do the Kendall/Pierre trade.

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 02:45 PM
My ideal scenario is to pull off this trade, sign Lieber to round out the rotation and trade for either Kendall or Pierre. They could do this within their budget and still have a little left over for bullpen help. I would be very :smile: going into 2005 with this team. Problem is, Konerko and Garland are the main tradable commodities and you can't trade them twice. If they pull off the RJ trade, I don't know that they have enough left to do the Kendall/Pierre trade.
We can clone him. Hopefully, he won't end up to be 1/8th his size and have a mini-PK on our hands. But then again...I guess we'd only have to pay him 1 mil/year. :cool:

GiveMeSox
11-17-2004, 02:46 PM
If Grilli is our fifth starter...even with Randy Johnson...we aren't winning the division, I will say that RIGHT NOW. If JR and KW haven't learned in the past 4 years, then...well, I don't know what I am going to do. But it won't be good!
This would be a horrible trade for us. Giving away our best hitter and run producer as well as a pitcher from our rotation for a one and done deal for RJ is horrid. We would be paying $16 mil for 1 year of services and then hes gone. Plus we still have only a 4 man rotation and still would need another pitcher to avoid the 5th starter fiasco again. Not to mention we would be without Konerko, a fan favorite and big time producer, at least home. Plus this would be more expensive for the sox. I would pray this deal doens't go down. RJ for 1 year aint worth giving up Konerko and Garland. Now if RJ was to be ours for multiple years and had the d-backs paying half the salary i would say yes. But doin this deal leaves us with a question mark at 1st and still a hole in the rotation. This doens't seem to be a deal worth doing.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:47 PM
My ideal scenario is to pull off this trade, sign Lieber to round out the rotation and trade for either Kendall or Pierre. They could do this within their budget and still have a little left over for bullpen help. I would be very :smile: going into 2005 with this team. Problem is, Konerko and Garland are the main tradable commodities and you can't trade them twice. If they pull off the RJ trade, I don't know that they have enough left to do the Kendall/Pierre trade.That's the problem. After Konerko and Garland, we don't have much else to trade. Maybe Crede but that will further create more holes in our lineup (although some would say that Crede IS already a hole in our lineup :tongue: ). If we did trade Konerko and Garland for RJ, I do like the idea of signing Lieber to be our 5th starter. Lieber doesn't walk guys and we need him to counter Contreras' knack for walking the world. :whiner:

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 02:49 PM
Would Randy approve the trade to the Sox over the Cardinals? I think Randy no. 1 choice would be to play in St.Louis.Randy doesn't get to choose. He can veto a trade, but that's all. If the Cards don't make a viable offer, the D-backs can just not trade him at all. He'll have to pitch till he's 50 to get his 300th win down there.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:50 PM
This would be a horrible trade for us. Giving away our best hitter and run producer as well as a pitcher from our rotation for a one and done deal for RJ is horrid. We would be paying $16 mil for 1 year of services and then hes gone. Plus we still have only a 4 man rotation and still would need another pitcher to avoid the 5th starter fiasco again. Not to mention we would be without Konerko, a fan favorite and big time producer, at least home. Plus this would be more expensive for the sox. I would pray this deal doens't go down. RJ for 1 year aint worth giving up Konerko and Garland. Now if RJ was to be ours for multiple years and had the d-backs paying half the salary i would say yes. But doin this deal leaves us with a question mark at 1st and still a hole in the rotation. This doens't seem to be a deal worth doing.We are likely going to lose Konerko after next season to free agency anyways so what's the difference? And the jury is still out on Garland. Who knows if he will ever pan out.

Paulwny
11-17-2004, 02:51 PM
Don't count out the Yankees, yet. Even if the D-backs don't want Vazquez, they might be able to work out a 3-way to get it done.
I read this earlier in a newspaper(?):
Vasquez to Texas
Soriano to AZ
RJ to the yanks

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:52 PM
We are likely going to lose Konerko after next season to free agency anyways so what's the difference? And the jury is still out on Garland. Who knows if he will ever pan out.
Funny how this team loses it's best players to F/A. Why do you suppose that is?

NonetheLoaiza
11-17-2004, 02:53 PM
I don't think it's so unfortunate. I think he is a very good defensive first baseman and hitting .321 in 110 games last year isn't too shabby, IMHO. However, I never, ever, ever, ever want to see him in the outfield again!I think that Ross gets a bad rap. People don't seem to notice his numbers, because they are compared to Paulie's. Sure, Ross isn't going to hit 40 home runs and 100+ rbis (and to tell you the truth, I don't think Paulie will next year either), but he is a solid defensive and not a bad offensive replacement for next year.

.321 / .375 / .479 in 234 ABs. It is not too bad of a sample size, but not too bad for his first full season in the majors. Now, the argument is that those numbers are more than fine for a bench player, but assuming we get some other key players to fill other holes, I can live with Ross at 1B if we deal Konerko.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:53 PM
That's the problem. After Konerko and Garland, we don't have much else to trade. Maybe Crede but that will further create more holes in our lineup (although some would say that Crede IS already a hole in our lineup :tongue: ). If we did trade Konerko and Garland for RJ, I do like the idea of signing Lieber to be our 5th starter. Lieber doesn't walk guys and we need him to counter Contreras' knack for walking the world. :whiner:
Pittsburgh is not interested in high priced talent. Their main goal in trading someone like Kendall is salary dump only. The bottom line is do we have some AAA or AA prospects that we can package together with some mid-level MLB talent to get this deal done. They don't want someone like CLee....

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:54 PM
Funny how this team loses it's best players to F/A. Why do you suppose that is?
Maybe we should sign PK to a 5 year $70M extension???

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 02:54 PM
I read this earlier in a newspaper(?):
Vasquez to Texas
Soriano to AZ
RJ to the yanks
If you want RJ on the S Side, this should really scare you. If it's even close, all the Spanks have to do is "throw in" Navarro/Cano to Tex & Zona and it'll get done. The only hope is that the Rangers don't want Vazquez without salary relief, and/or that the DBacks are worried about Sori & his cost/value.

OfficerKarkovice
11-17-2004, 02:54 PM
This would be a horrible trade for us. Giving away our best hitter and run producer as well as a pitcher from our rotation for a one and done deal for RJ is horrid.
Nobody said anything about trading Big Frank anywhere...don't worry.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 02:55 PM
We are likely going to lose Konerko after next season to free agency anyways so what's the difference? And the jury is still out on Garland. Who knows if he will ever pan out.I'm not sure I'd agree that they wouldn't be able to re-sign PK after 2005. But the fact is, to fill all their needs via FA would cost at least $20M, and they're not going to spend that much. Trades are going to be needed, and you don't get something for nothing.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:56 PM
I think that Ross gets a bad rap. People don't seem to notice his numbers, because they are compared to Paulie's. Sure, Ross isn't going to hit 40 home runs and 100+ rbis (and to tell you the truth, I don't think Paulie will next year either), but he is a solid defensive and not a bad offensive replacement for next year.

.321 / .375 / .479 in 234 ABs. It is not too bad of a sample size, but not too bad for his first full season in the majors. Now, the argument is that those numbers are more than fine for a bench player, but assuming we get some other key players to fill other holes, I can live with Ross at 1B if we deal Konerko.
Don't read too much into those numbers as well. Alot of Gload's numbers came at the end of the year against non-playoff caliber teams and certainly not against any great pitching. I'm not bashing him but I think it's very premature to assume that you are going to get him batting .320 next year...

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 02:57 PM
Pittsburgh is not interested in high priced talent. Their main goal in trading someone like Kendall is salary dump only. The bottom line is do we have some AAA or AA prospects that we can package together with some mid-level MLB talent to get this deal done. They don't want someone like CLee....No, but they would probably be interested in Garland + Davis + a prospect. Funny how a guy who's so poorly regarded is the key to so many deals.:cool:

Justafan
11-17-2004, 02:57 PM
Maybe we should sign PK to a 5 year $70M extension???
Maybe the Sox should just lose all of the best players to F/A. That sounds like a good plan. We can always replace them with all of the minor league talent that KW has at his beckon call.

Iwritecode
11-17-2004, 02:58 PM
Nobody said anything about trading Big Frank anywhere...don't worry.

Nice. :D:



Haven't seen you around here much.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:58 PM
No, but they would probably be interested in Garland + Davis + a prospect. Funny how a guy who's so poorly regarded is the key to so many deals.:cool:
I actually could see them taking a trade like that.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 02:59 PM
Pittsburgh is not interested in high priced talent. Their main goal in trading someone like Kendall is salary dump only. The bottom line is do we have some AAA or AA prospects that we can package together with some mid-level MLB talent to get this deal done. They don't want someone like CLee....Unless you want to trade Brian Anderson or Ryan Sweeney, I don't think we have the prospects unless we want to take on most of Kendall's contract. The Pirates would want Garland but it's all about Kendall's contract. Neither the Pirates nor JR would want to pay it.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 02:59 PM
Maybe the Sox should just lose all of the best players to F/A. That sounds like a good plan. We can always replace them with all of the minor league talent that KW has at his beckon call.
Quoting myself on a different thread:

Good comeback. :thumbsup:

Mohoney
11-17-2004, 03:05 PM
Don't count out the Yankees, yet. Even if the D-backs don't want Vazquez, they might be able to work out a 3-way to get it done.
I would seriously look long and hard at trying to bring Vazquez here. If the Yankees are hell-bent on Unit and want to trade Vazquez to open a spot in the rotation for him, we should try to pry Soriano from the Rangers for Garland + lesser prospects, then turn around and deal Soriano for Vazquez + cash.

If we can upgrade from Garland to Vazquez on Steinbrenner's dollar, and our payroll indeed shoots up to $75 million, we can still sign a journeyman free agent starter to be the #4 or #5 (basically competing with Contreras for the #4 spot), sign Troy Percival for the bullpen, and maybe pick up Polanco. Best of all, we don't have to trade away Konerko or Lee.

mike squires
11-17-2004, 03:06 PM
No, this trade cannot happen, what am I gonna do with my 2 Paul Konerko bobble heads??? :o: :tongue:

OfficerKarkovice
11-17-2004, 03:09 PM
Nice. :D:



Haven't seen you around here much.
Yeah I am currently out of the country. As it turns out though they have the internet in Europe too so I've been trying to keep up on the news...just not a lot of time to post anything.

NonetheLoaiza
11-17-2004, 03:13 PM
Don't read too much into those numbers as well. Alot of Gload's numbers came at the end of the year against non-playoff caliber teams and certainly not against any great pitching. I'm not bashing him but I think it's very premature to assume that you are going to get him batting .320 next year...
oh i dont intend him to be hitting .320 next year. but you also have to remember we are in the al central and we are going to face mediocre pitching from non-playoff teams all year long. should the right trade come along and force us to trade paulie, i am not going to moan and complain about ross playing first until he approaches the mendoza line with no signs of improvement.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 03:24 PM
As it turns out though they have the internet in Europe too so I've been trying to keep up on the news...
Wow. The internet is everywhere....

MisterB
11-17-2004, 03:24 PM
Not sure on that. If Arizona wants a big salary windfall, they'll look at that St. Louis offer. Konerko + Garland = ~10 million next year, no?
But they also could be thinking beyond '05. If they don't make that trade, RJ walks and they still owe him $6M deferred. If they do make the trade, they have a SP with one more year of arbitration, Konerko walks and no $ owed to RJ. That said, I don't think RJ accepts that deal anyway unless the Sox make a bigger commitment to putting a playoff-caliber team together (bullpen, leadoff man, etc.) first.

Mickster
11-17-2004, 03:25 PM
......i am not going to moan and complain about ross playing first until he approaches the mendoza line with no signs of improvement.A la Crede/Valentin in '04? :D:

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 03:28 PM
I would seriously look long and hard at trying to bring Vazquez here. If the Yankees are hell-bent on Unit and want to trade Vazquez to open a spot in the rotation for him, we should try to pry Soriano from the Rangers for Garland + lesser prospects, then turn around and deal Soriano for Vazquez + cash.

If we can upgrade from Garland to Vazquez on Steinbrenner's dollar, and our payroll indeed shoots up to $75 million, we can still sign a journeyman free agent starter to be the #4 or #5 (basically competing with Contreras for the #4 spot), sign Troy Percival for the bullpen, and maybe pick up Polanco. Best of all, we don't have to trade away Konerko or Lee.My first choice would be to get Johnson for the Sox. Failing that, I would certainly be in favor of improving the team on Steinbrenner's money. I have two serious doubts about the scenario you proposed.

1. Do the Yanks want Soriano back? I certainly don't want him and they know him better than we do.
2. If you think Johnson is risky, what about Vazquez? Which one will we get, Jeckyll or Hyde?

I'm also not nearly as interested in Polanco as I would be in getting Kendall or Pierre. Polanco is just a modest improvement over what he'd be replacing. Kendall or Pierre would replace either Davis or an empty hole, so you not only get a much better player, but you don't put a decent young player on the bench.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 03:34 PM
My first choice would be to get Johnson for the Sox. Failing that, I would certainly be in favor of improving the team on Steinbrenner's money. I have two serious doubts about the scenario you proposed.

1. Do the Yanks want Soriano back? I certainly don't want him and they know him better than we do.
2. If you think Johnson is risky, what about Vazquez? Which one will we get, Jeckyll or Hyde?

I'm also not nearly as interested in Polanco as I would be in getting Kendall or Pierre. Polanco is just a modest improvement over what he'd be replacing. Kendall or Pierre would replace either Davis or an empty hole, so you not only get a much better player, but you don't put a decent young player on the bench.If we trade Konerko and/or Garland for a starting pitcher which is the most likely scenario, who do we trade for Kendall or Pierre?

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 03:36 PM
If we trade Konerko and/or Garland for a starting pitcher which is the most likely scenario, who do we trade for Kendall or Pierre?That's the problem I pointed out about 10 posts back. But in my view, a top-notch starting pitcher is the higher priority.

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 03:39 PM
Hmmmmm...A big unit is good to have, errr...ummm...I meant THE Big unit. However, if the Sox are going to pay his salary I would rather see them do this:

Trade PK for BJ Ryan/Roberts or Hairston to Orioles. (save about 4mil)
Sign GOOD FA starter.

But who knows how the Sox would do with Palehose13 as GM. :?:

chisoxmike
11-17-2004, 03:39 PM
Our offer looks like the best. The Yankees have no young talent to give. The problem will arise if Arizona wants Mark or Freddy, I wouldn't do it. Getting rid of them will put us back to the start. Getting Johnson would give us a good 1-2-3 rotation, with Conteras as #4. We will still need a #5 starter KW!!!! But by getting rid of Mark or Freddy, we still will have a pretty good 1-2 punch.

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 03:41 PM
If we trade Konerko and/or Garland for a starting pitcher which is the most likely scenario, who do we trade for Kendall or Pierre?
I'd liek to get Kendall and I assume that the Bucos want to dump his salary...so I assume they aren't necessarily interested in PK. Anyone know what they need? Joe Crede?

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 03:41 PM
Sometimes I do not understand some of my fellow White Sox brothers. Last year, most on this board would have been jumping up and down if we could have landed Odalis Perez for Konerko. Now, we might be able to land arguably THE MOST DOMINATING PITCHER in major league baseball today for Konerko (who is gone in '06 anyway) and Jon "filling the diaper every 5th inning" Garland! And people are complaining?

Are you guys NUTS? THIS IS RANDY JOHNSON!! RANDY JOHNSON! 41 years old or not, the guy is still at the top of his game! While you guys are worried about his age and his salary, I'm thinking of the possibility of seeing The Big Unit in a White Sox uniform chewing up teams in the AL Central for breakfast. You think the Astros gave a crap about the age of Roger Clemens when he was pitching them into the NLCS? How about the Red Sox? Were they worried about Schilling's age when they traded for him? My God, the Reinsdorf regime has gotten White Sox Nation so budget minded and gunshy. You want to win a World Series on a budget? You need to make bold moves and catch lightning in a bottle. The 6' 11 Randy is the biggest bolt of lightning on the market. This would be the boldest yet for Kenny Williams and I for one, will be ecstatic to see him make it happen.

chisoxmike
11-17-2004, 03:43 PM
As much as it would pain me to see Konerko and Garland to go...I would definatly green light it if it was for Konerko and Garland.


:hawk
"DJ, you know, I think Garland will win 20 games in 2005."

:DJ
"Kind of like you thought he would in 2004?"

awakward silence

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 03:44 PM
Hmmmmm...A big unit is good to have, errr...ummm...I meant THE Big unit.Since when do you like units? :wink:

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 03:45 PM
Since when do you like units? :wink:And we haven't even started on the "Johnson" jokes yet.:redneck

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 03:45 PM
Jon "filling the diaper every 5th inning" Garland!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:



On a sadder note: did that bring a potential slogan to anyone else's mind?

"White Sox Baseball: Filling the diaper since 1917".

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 03:51 PM
Since when do you like units? :wink:I was talking about MY unit. :wink:

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 03:52 PM
I was talking about MY unit. :wink:Just invite me over and you won't need a fake one. :wink:

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 03:56 PM
Just invite me over and you won't need a fake one. :wink::tsk:

Oh...and I don't need it. But my girlfriend likes it sometimes...


Um...sorry if this is getting taken to the 'house. :redface:

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 03:59 PM
:tsk:

Oh...and I don't need it. But my girlfriend likes it sometimes...


Um...sorry if this is getting taken to the 'house. :redface:SIGN ME UP!!! :supernana:

Randar68
11-17-2004, 04:00 PM
:tsk:

Oh...and I don't need it. But my girlfriend likes it sometimes...


Um...sorry if this is getting taken to the 'house. :redface:
:hijacked:

Not that I mind, though!

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 04:03 PM
:hijacked:

Not that I mind, though!
Sorry.
So yeah, my idea on a trade with Baltimore and signing a different top notch pitcher...

Iwritecode
11-17-2004, 04:11 PM
Sometimes I do not understand some of my fellow White Sox brothers. Last year, most on this board would have been jumping up and down if we could have landed Odalis Perez for Konerko. Now, we might be able to land arguably THE MOST DOMINATING PITCHER in major league baseball today for Konerko (who is gone in '06 anyway) and Jon "filling the diaper every 5th inning" Garland! And people are complaining?

Are you guys NUTS? THIS IS RANDY JOHNSON!! RANDY JOHNSON! 41 years old or not, the guy is still at the top of his game! While you guys are worried about his age and his salary, I'm thinking of the possibility of seeing The Big Unit in a White Sox uniform chewing up teams in the AL Central for breakfast. You think the Astros gave a crap about the age of Roger Clemens when he was pitching them into the NLCS? How about the Red Sox? Were they worried about Schilling's age when they traded for him? My God, the Reinsdorf regime has gotten White Sox Nation so budget minded and gunshy. You want to win a World Series on a budget? You need to make bold moves and catch lightning in a bottle. The 6' 11 Randy is the biggest bolt of lightning on the market. This would be the boldest yet for Kenny Williams and I for one, will be ecstatic to see him make it happen.


The biggest complaint I've seen is that if they trade Garland to get RJ, then they would still have a hole in the #5 spot.

I don't care how good RJ is, he can't pitch in both the #1 and #5 spots...

BTW, IIRC he is only 6'9" and Rauch is 6'10"...

Wealz
11-17-2004, 04:14 PM
If we trade Konerko and/or Garland for a starting pitcher which is the most likely scenario, who do we trade for Kendall or Pierre?
Lee and Crede for Kendalll ...

('04 payroll -(Ordonez + Konerko + Lee + Valentin)) = appx. $31M

Add Garcia, Contreras, and Everrett to that number and it's appx $50M

Add Johnson & half of Kendall's contract and and the payroll goes to appx $77M.

Now $77M is above the most optimistic view I've seen about the payroll ($75M) and they still have holes at third and in right, but RJ could be seen as one of those special players who will increase revenues so maybe they could squeeze in Polanco @ around 3yr/$15M. Polanco would be my choice over Koskie because if Josh Fields is ready sometime in 2006, Polanco could be moved to second.

Kendall C
Polanco 3B
Thomas DH
Everrett LF
Rowand CF
Gload 1B
Uribe SS
?? RF
Harris 2B

santo=dorf
11-17-2004, 04:14 PM
Unit
Buerhle
Garcia
Contreras
Grilli?

4 and 5 still blow. KW must solidify 4 and 5 or RJ makes no difference.
Well according to you, our current rotation blows in the 3, 4, and 5 spot.

Right now we have a problem at the #3 spot in the rotation, if we get Johnson, we would have a problem at the #5 spot.

Which spot would you rather have a problem at? :?:

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 04:16 PM
Lee and Crede for Kendalll ...

('04 payroll -(Ordonez + Konerko + Lee + Valentin)) = appx. $31M

Add Garcia, Contreras, and Everrett to that number and it's appx $50M

Add Johnson & half of Kendall's contract and and the payroll goes to appx $77M.

Now $77M is above the most optimistic view I've seen about the payroll ($75M) and they still have holes at third and in right, but RJ could be seen as one of those special players who will increase revenues so maybe they could squeeze in Polanco @ around 3yr/$15M. Polanco would be my choice over Koskie because if Josh Fields is ready sometime in 2006, Polanco could be moved to second.

Kendall C
Polanco 3B
Thomas DH
Everrett LF
Rowand CF
Gload 1B
Uribe SS
?? RF
Harris 2B
If I understand your math correctly, then you should subtract Koch's 6.75mil as well.

But anyway, with Rob Mackowiak, I don't think the Bucco's have that much interest in Crede.

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 04:16 PM
BTW, IIRC he is only 6'9" and Rauch is 6'10"...Randy Johnson is 6'10" and Jon Rauch is 6'11", so Rauch has got THAT going for him. :D:

Wealz
11-17-2004, 04:30 PM
If I understand your math correctly, then you should subtract Koch's 6.75mil as well.

But anyway, with Rob Mackowiak, I don't think the Bucco's have that much interest in Crede.
Forgot about Koch's salary. Cancel Polanco and go after Beltre. :wink:

I think Crede would interest the Pirates. They could put Mackowiak in right and Craig Wilson at first.

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 04:44 PM
The biggest complaint I've seen is that if they trade Garland to get RJ, then they would still have a hole in the #5 spot.

I don't care how good RJ is, he can't pitch in both the #1 and #5 spots...

BTW, IIRC he is only 6'9" and Rauch is 6'10"...
I've also read the complaints that say you just CAN'T pay a guy $16 million who is 41 years old. These are people who are failing to see who that 41 year old player happens to be and are scared to death that we somehow are getting damaged goods even though the guy did nothing but dominate last year. Anyone who got that many wins with a team as inept as the D'backs were last year should open everyone's eyes as to the caliber of pitcher Johnson is.

And you are correct about people's complaint about the #5 spot but my point is this: The addition of Randy Johnson as a bonifide #1 ACE stud to the rotation far outweighs the slight downgrade from Jon Garland to Grilli. Grilli could develop into an 8-10 win pitcher (which is all your asking out of the #5 spot anyway) or KW might also be able to find a veteran #5 starter after Spring Training cuts are made. Paging Robert Person?:cool: Finding a #5 is a much easier task then getting a pitcher like Randy Johnson. Garland is replacable, pitchers like Randy Johnson don't come around very often (especially to the South Side). With Randy Johnson, the White Sox would have that ace in the hole and would put themselves in a position to not only win a division title but possibly go far in the playoffs. It's all about the starting pitching gents.

Palehose13
11-17-2004, 04:46 PM
I've also read the complaints that say you just CAN'T pay a guy $16 million who is 41 years old. These are people who are failing to see who that 41 year old player happens to be and are scared to death that we somehow are getting damaged goods even though the guy did nothing but dominate last year. Anyone who got that many wins with a team as inept as the D'backs were last year should open everyone's eyes as to the caliber of pitcher Johnson is.

And you are correct about people's complaint about the #5 spot but my point is this: The addition of Randy Johnson as a bonifide #1 ACE stud to the rotation far outweighs the slight downgrade from Jon Garland to Grilli. Grilli could develop into an 8-10 win pitcher (which is all your asking out of the #5 spot anyway) or KW might also be able to find a veteran #5 starter after Spring Training cuts are made. Paging Robert Person?:cool: Finding a #5 is a much easier task then getting a pitcher like Randy Johnson. Garland is replacable, pitchers like Randy Johnson don't come around very often (especially to the South Side). With Randy Johnson, the White Sox would have that ace in the hole and would put themselves in a position to not only win a division title but possibly go far in the playoffs. It's all about the starting pitching gents.
Ok. You convinced me. Seriously. You did.

1917
11-17-2004, 04:49 PM
I would love to bring the unit it even at the expense of Konerko and Garland, but the big question remains WILL HE COME??? Don't give me any news that last year he said he would, I'm talking 2005.....JR and KW IF YOU BUILD IT, HE WILL COME

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 04:58 PM
I would love to bring the unit it even at the expense of Konerko and Garland, but the big question remains WILL HE COME??? Don't give me any news that last year he said he would, I'm talking 2005.....JR and KW IF YOU BUILD IT, HE WILL COMEHe'll definately come if his only alternative is staying in Arizona. If the Sox put together the only attractive package for the D-backs, it may come down to that. A beefed up bullpen would be a great selling point. I think his #1 priority is getting to 300 wins. Even above playoff possibilities. He'll have to pitch until he's 50 if he stays in Arizona.

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 05:01 PM
I would love to bring the unit it even at the expense of Konerko and Garland, but the big question remains WILL HE COME??? Don't give me any news that last year he said he would, I'm talking 2005.....JR and KW IF YOU BUILD IT, HE WILL COME
Well, assuming the D'backs come to Johnson and say that the deal they want is with the White Sox, I hope that given the option to join a team that will be contending for the AL Central or going back to the desert and losing 100 games again, I have to believe he will choose the former rather than the latter. It had to burn him a bit to watch fellow old timers like Schilling and Clemens pitch in the playoffs while he sat at home and at least on the White Sox, he has a shot at the playoffs where another year in Arizona assures him no post season berth.

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 05:06 PM
Ok. You convinced me. Seriously. You did.
Glad to hear it. Let's hope KW gets this deal done before Christmas so we can all have sugar plum visions of Randy Johnson striking out Torii Hunter dancing in our heads.:D: I can envision it now:

:hawk
"HE GONE!! Mercy!! #15 for Johnson!"

1917
11-17-2004, 05:06 PM
So the Diamondbacks can reject any offer without Randys approval, but they can't pull the trigger on a deal without his OK right? Meaning if the Yanks come at them with a lousey offer, they can gun it down without getting the approval of Randy? I don't see anybody matching our offer especially if they include Anderson

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 05:06 PM
Well, assuming the D'backs come to Johnson and say that the deal they want is with the White Sox, I hope that given the option to join a team that will be contending for the AL Central or going back to the desert and losing 100 games again, I have to believe he will choose the former rather than the latter. It had to burn him a bit to watch fellow old timers like Schilling and Clemens pitch in the playoffs while he sat at home and at least on the White Sox, he has a shot at the playoffs where another year in Arizona assures him no post season berth.
In an odd fashion, he may actually have a better shot at postseason success with the Sox than the Cards. Sox-Konerko-Garland+RJ would be IMO the frontrunners in the still-weak ALC whereas the Cards would still be competing against the Chubs and possibly still the Astros.

And once in the playoffs, I like the chances of the Sox throwing RJ against just about any team. RJ-Garcia-Buehrle-RJ-Garcia-Buehrle-RJ is a very tough playoff rotation.

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 05:07 PM
So the Diamondbacks can reject any offer without Randys approval, but they can't pull the trigger on a deal without his OK right? Meaning if the Yanks come at them with a lousey offer, they can gun it down without getting the approval of Randy? I don't see anybody matching our offer especially if they include Anderson
:o:


Don't do that. If you must, add in a lower level prospect, but none of our top guys.

Paulwny
11-17-2004, 05:12 PM
:o:


Don't do that. If you must, add in a lower level prospect, but none of our top guys.
You either offer top guys or you'll have to pay the bulk of his salary. AZ isn't going to take crap and eat contract.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 05:17 PM
:o:


Don't do that. If you must, add in a lower level prospect, but none of our top guys.It sounds like Konerko/Garland is already better than what anyone else is offering. The D-backs are not going to throw in cash or another player if we add Anderson. The best they'll get is for the D-backs to pay the deferred money, and judging from previous contracts they've made, it's probably deferred until the next Ice Age. Beware the Yankees, though. They're not going to give up easily, and they're trying to work out a 3-way involving Vazquez.

Hangar18
11-17-2004, 05:17 PM
We would stand to lose one of out BEST hitters in the lineup, not
to mention a SOLID FIrst Baseman. Can you imagine if the SOX just
Spent the Money back in the day and traded for Randy Johnson when
he was originally available? I wonder how many times .....we'd
have been in the playoffs with a Big Unit as our #1 Pitcher ?

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 05:21 PM
It sounds like Konerko/Garland is already better than what anyone else is offering. The D-backs are not going to throw in cash or another player if we add Anderson. The best they'll get is for the D-backs to pay the deferred money, and judging from previous contracts they've made, it's probably deferred until the next Ice Age. Beware the Yankees, though. They're not going to give up easily, and they're trying to work out a 3-way involving Vazquez.I think someone (Daver?) posted that in a trade of a player with deferrals that are grandfathered into the current CBA (i.e. not subject to the current constraints), the team acquiring the player has to pay him under current CBA constraints. So the $$$ would get undeferred, or at least deferred out 2 years rather than the 6.3 eons that his current deal likely has.

The DBacks do this deal to get out from under the $6mil, to acquire a young, cheap pitcher that they have under ontract for another year or 2, and to acquire a young 1B that they can likely resign cheaper than they would have paid Sexson.

They'll have to balance that against pure salary relief, which they could likely get in a Yanks deal, or against whatever 3-way the Spanks can provide. And failing to get Johnson, I'd be willing to be the 3d team in a trade that nets us Vazquez+cash.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 05:34 PM
From the CBA:



ARTICLE XVI—Deferred Compensation





There shall be no limitations on either the amount of deferred compensation or the percentage of total compensation attributable to deferred compensation for which a Uniform Player’s Contract may provide.

Deferred compensation obligations incurred in a Contract executed after December 31, 1985 but before September 30, 2002 must be fully funded, in an amount equal to the present value of the total deferred compensation obligation, on or before the third January 1 following the championship season in which the deferred compensation is earned. Deferred compensation obligations incurred in a Contract executed on or after September 30, 2002 must be fully funded, in an amount equal to the present value of the total deferred compensation obligation, on or before the second July 1 following the championship season in which the deferred compensation is earned.

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 05:42 PM
From the CBA:










Define "fully funded". From a pension standpoint, that just means you have to have the PV available in cash or assets, not that it has to be paid out, right?

Also, I could swear there was some limitation that said a max of 20% per year could be deferred.

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 05:52 PM
We would stand to lose one of out BEST hitters in the lineup, not
to mention a SOLID FIrst Baseman. Can you imagine if the SOX just
Spent the Money back in the day and traded for Randy Johnson when
he was originally available? I wonder how many times .....we'd
have been in the playoffs with a Big Unit as our #1 Pitcher ?
Unfortunately Hangar, we are the White Sox and the shell game must be played under the JR regime. Add, subtract, add, subtract, this is the lot of poor Kenny Williams. The man who must find that recipe for success. The key is filling the hole (Ace Starter) while not entirely crippling a strength of the team (power hitting). I believe a downgrade in power from Konerko to Gload is worth the potential of a 20 win season from Randy Johnson.

I really do believe Randy Johnson could be the difference maker that tips the balance of power to the Sox in the AL Central. I'll take my chances on Ross Gload delivering a 20HR 75RBI season while Randy Johnson wins 20 games for us in a White Sox uniform.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 06:18 PM
Define "fully funded". From a pension standpoint, that just means you have to have the PV available in cash or assets, not that it has to be paid out, right?

Also, I could swear there was some limitation that said a max of 20% per year could be deferred.If you have to fund it, I imagine it must have to be held in escrow and you can't touch it so there's no point in not paying it out.

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 10:39 PM
If you have to fund it, I imagine it must have to be held in escrow and you can't touch it so there's no point in not paying it out.
Depends on the rate you can get on it v. the rate you're using to calc the PV. IIRC, funded pensions just mean you have assets on hand that will cover the pension liability. You can still invest those. Not 100% on that though.

That seems to contradict what I've seen/read in other places, I was pretty sure (and had it confirmed by others here FWIW), that max deferrals were 20%/yr, and that older contracts were grandfathered in.

Regardless, the more I think about it, the more I think the DBacks will not pick up the deferred $6mil unless the Sox send over prospects as well. However, between Frank, Everett, Contreras they have a lot of options to "find" 6mil in 1-2 years, and coincidentally, that's about the timeline they expect to have BMac/Sweeney/Anderson around cheaply, so they can hopefully afford the RJ $$.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 10:25 AM
Depends on the rate you can get on it v. the rate you're using to calc the PV. IIRC, funded pensions just mean you have assets on hand that will cover the pension liability. You can still invest those. Not 100% on that though.

That seems to contradict what I've seen/read in other places, I was pretty sure (and had it confirmed by others here FWIW), that max deferrals were 20%/yr, and that older contracts were grandfathered in.

Regardless, the more I think about it, the more I think the DBacks will not pick up the deferred $6mil unless the Sox send over prospects as well. However, between Frank, Everett, Contreras they have a lot of options to "find" 6mil in 1-2 years, and coincidentally, that's about the timeline they expect to have BMac/Sweeney/Anderson around cheaply, so they can hopefully afford the RJ $$.When they say you have to fund it, I have to assume that means the money has to be set aside and you can't touch it. Otherwise it's pretty meaningless, isn't it? They all have $6M in assets on hand.

I agree on RJ's deferral. The only way the D-backs would pick it up is for another player, and to me it's not worth it. According to the CBA, it wouldn't be due until Jan 1, 2009, and a lot can happen by then. If it has the desired effect on the team's performance, they could easily add 200K/yr in attendance, which would be enough to pay for the $6M. My guess is that a condition of RJ's accepting the trade will be an extension, and that might be the bigger sticking point. How much and how many years is he going to want? It's known he wants to reach 300 wins badly. 54 more wins is three years, minimum, no matter who he plays for. Is he going to want a 2-year extension? Extending his contract until he's 44 seems a trifle risky.

Flight #24
11-18-2004, 10:31 AM
When they say you have to fund it, I have to assume that means the money has to be set aside and you can't touch it. Otherwise it's pretty meaningless, isn't it? They all have $6M in assets on hand.

I agree on RJ's deferral. The only way the D-backs would pick it up is for another player, and to me it's not worth it. According to the CBA, it wouldn't be due until Jan 1, 2009, and a lot can happen by then. If it has the desired effect on the team's performance, they could easily add 200K/yr in attendance, which would be enough to pay for the $6M. My guess is that a condition of RJ's accepting the trade will be an extension, and that might be the bigger sticking point. How much and how many years is he going to want? It's known he wants to reach 300 wins badly. 54 more wins is three years, minimum, no matter who he plays for. Is he going to want a 2-year extension? Extending his contract until he's 44 seems a trifle risky.
I'd give him a 2-yr $18mil deal with possible incentives to go higher. Then between 2005 & 2006, you'd replace Everett with Sweeney/Anderson (4mil savings), reduce RJ's salary a bit, and then probably reduce Frank's as well (IMO, sicne the Sox have a buyout they'll negotiate an extension to keep him on the S Side at say 7mil per and he'll accept rather than take the buyout and hit FA). You'd have the ability to keep payroll relatively flat, and if you needed to you could deal Contreras/Lee in their last years to get some savings.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 10:45 AM
I'd give him a 2-yr $18mil deal with possible incentives to go higher. Then between 2005 & 2006, you'd replace Everett with Sweeney/Anderson (4mil savings), reduce RJ's salary a bit, and then probably reduce Frank's as well (IMO, sicne the Sox have a buyout they'll negotiate an extension to keep him on the S Side at say 7mil per and he'll accept rather than take the buyout and hit FA). You'd have the ability to keep payroll relatively flat, and if you needed to you could deal Contreras/Lee in their last years to get some savings.I think RJ would be a huge attendance draw. If you recall in 2001 when they got David Wells the place was rocking early in the season whenever he pitched. Of course, coming off a division championship didn't hurt, either. But you have to win to sustain it, and they didn't, for a variety of reasons. If you figure a net of $30 per extra person (probably conservative with parking, concessions, etc.), you would need an extra 200K to generate $6M. I can easily see that happening. Here is a case where spending a little extra really can pay for itself.

Paulwny
11-18-2004, 10:48 AM
My guess is that a condition of RJ's accepting the trade will be an extension, and that might be the bigger sticking point. How much and how many years is he going to want? It's known he wants to reach 300 wins badly. 54 more wins is three years, minimum, no matter who he plays for. Is he going to want a 2-year extension? Extending his contract until he's 44 seems a trifle risky.
Yep, I mentioned an extension last week in a previous RJ thread.
Once a player has a no trade clause he holds the trump card which he will sell.
That's why we can forget about Kendall. He'll probably also negotiate a contract extension if a non west coast team wants him.

jabrch
11-18-2004, 10:49 AM
Unfortunately Hangar, we are the White Sox and the shell game must be played under the JR regime. Add, subtract, add, subtract, this is the lot of poor Kenny Williams.

All business have budgets. If you increase spending in one area, you have to decrease it somewhere else unless you can create an additional predictable revenue stream... Why should this be any different?

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 10:55 AM
Yep, I mentioned an extension last week in a previous RJ thread.
Once a player has a no trade clause he holds the trump card which he will sell.
That's why we can forget about Kendall. He'll probably also negotiate a contract extension if a non west coast team wants him.The big difference is Kendall already has 3(?) years left on his contract.

Paulwny
11-18-2004, 11:02 AM
The big difference is Kendall already has 3(?) years left on his contract.
I agree, but why not go for an extension ?, it guarantees $$ for additional yrs. I believe he catches a high number of games each year, wear and tear on the knees, maybe he's feeling it already.

CarlosMay'sThumb
11-18-2004, 11:03 AM
I think RJ would be a huge attendance draw. If you recall in 2001 when they got David Wells the place was rocking early in the season whenever he pitched. Of course, coming off a division championship didn't hurt, either. But you have to win to sustain it, and they didn't, for a variety of reasons. If you figure a net of $30 per extra person (probably conservative with parking, concessions, etc.), you would need an extra 200K to generate $6M. I can easily see that happening. Here is a case where spending a little extra really can pay for itself.Wells is a good reason why the Sox should NOT get RJ. The Sox are nowhere near winning the WS next year or for the foreseeable future. Getting an old guy, as great as he is, does not get the Sox closer to winning the WS in 2008 or 9 (the earliest chance assuming the Sox get a new GM). It's very likely that age will eventually take its toll and he will suffer injuries. He'll also give fewer opportunities to young pitching. The Sox should spend money on multiple young pitchers and get a little better each year.

Baby Fisk
11-18-2004, 11:06 AM
:tomatoaward

wdelaney72
11-18-2004, 11:13 AM
This has been said before in other threads, but it obviously needs to be stated again.

Garland AND Konerko for Johnson is NOT in the DBacks interests. The only benefit they got for dealing RJ is reducing salary. That translates to players out performing their contracts. Garland and Konerko would only provide 4 million in relief to Arizona. That's not enough incentive to deal a HOF starting pitcher who still dominates every time he takes the mound and puts fannies in the seats every time he starts.

Any trade to the DBacks will likely involve Konerko, becuase they need someone at 1B. Any other players involved would be prospects or up and coming players like an Aaron Rowand who aren't very expensive.

If Jon Garland is involved in a trade, it will be to the Pirates for Jason Kendall.

It is my belief (and I don't think I'm drinking too much Kool-Aid) that the Sox are in a very good position to bring in RJ and give the DBacks the most in return. I predict

1) RJ and throwaway minor leaguer to the Sox for:
Paul Konerko, Sweeney or Anderson, Cotts or Diaz or Grilli. The Sox will negotiate an extension with RJ to keep him around for a second year. Remember, RJ needs at least 2 more years to achieve the stats he's looking for, and being on an American League team where he doesn't have to bat or run the bases will help.

2) The Sox will upgrade at catcher. Maybe Kendall, but also maybe Damian Miller is brought in as pat of the plan to lure RJ. Remember, Miller and RJ were teammates the year the DBacks won the world series. Signing Miller and upgrading 2B makes more sense than taking on Kendall's gigantic contract (even though Pitt will eat some of it). If the Sox trade for Kendall, it will involve sending Pitt Garland and Ben Davis, if the Sox sign Miller, Davis will be involved in another trade. Either way, Burke will be the backup catcher and Davis will be out.

3) Carlos Lee will get a contract extension some time early in the 2005 season. This organization has always loved C. Lee and he is every bit the "grinder" player that Kenny likes and plays defense and hits for average, which Ozzie likes.

wdelaney72
11-18-2004, 11:16 AM
Wells is a good reason why the Sox should NOT get RJ. The Sox are nowhere near winning the WS next year or for the foreseeable future. Getting an old guy, as great as he is, does not get the Sox closer to winning the WS in 2008 or 9 (the earliest chance assuming the Sox get a new GM). It's very likely that age will eventually take its toll and he will suffer injuries. He'll also give fewer opportunities to young pitching. The Sox should spend money on multiple young pitchers and get a little better each year.
David Wells = Fat, Drunk, and Out of Shape. Yes, that plays a big role in his pitching health.

Randy Johnson = Not fat and not out of shape

These two pitchers are not comparable.

Flight #24
11-18-2004, 11:24 AM
David Wells = Fat, Drunk, and Out of Shape. Yes, that plays a big role in his pitching health.

Randy Johnson = Not fat and not out of shape

These two pitchers are not comparable.
You forget the core logic. If RJ came here, both he and Wells would have been acquired by KW, that inherently means that they were bad deals.

southsider17
11-18-2004, 11:24 AM
This has been said before in other threads, but it obviously needs to be stated again.

Garland AND Konerko for Johnson is NOT in the DBacks interests. The only benefit they got for dealing RJ is reducing salary. That translates to players out performing their contracts. Garland and Konerko would only provide 4 million in relief to Arizona. That's not enough incentive to deal a HOF starting pitcher who still dominates every time he takes the mound and puts fannies in the seats every time he starts.

Any trade to the DBacks will likely involve Konerko, becuase they need someone at 1B. Any other players involved would be prospects or up and coming players like an Aaron Rowand who aren't very expensive.

If Jon Garland is involved in a trade, it will be to the Pirates for Jason Kendall.

It is my belief (and I don't think I'm drinking too much Kool-Aid) that the Sox are in a very good position to bring in RJ and give the DBacks the most in return. I predict

1) RJ and throwaway minor leaguer to the Sox for:
Paul Konerko, Sweeney or Anderson, Cotts or Diaz or Grilli. The Sox will negotiate an extension with RJ to keep him around for a second year. Remember, RJ needs at least 2 more years to achieve the stats he's looking for, and being on an American League team where he doesn't have to bat or run the bases will help.

2) The Sox will upgrade at catcher. Maybe Kendall, but also maybe Damian Miller is brought in as pat of the plan to lure RJ. Remember, Miller and RJ were teammates the year the DBacks won the world series. Signing Miller and upgrading 2B makes more sense than taking on Kendall's gigantic contract (even though Pitt will eat some of it). If the Sox trade for Kendall, it will involve sending Pitt Garland and Ben Davis, if the Sox sign Miller, Davis will be involved in another trade. Either way, Burke will be the backup catcher and Davis will be out.

3) Carlos Lee will get a contract extension some time early in the 2005 season. This organization has always loved C. Lee and he is every bit the "grinder" player that Kenny likes and plays defense and hits for average, which Ozzie likes.
I haven't checked the $$$ numbers but .... I LIKE!!! Especially the 'keep CLee' part. The Damian Miller situation would make it more likely and the upgrade at 2B should be Polanco.

Pretending is so much fun!

That said, I doubt any of this happens. :whiner:

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 11:34 AM
This has been said before in other threads, but it obviously needs to be stated again.

Garland AND Konerko for Johnson is NOT in the DBacks interests. The only benefit they got for dealing RJ is reducing salary. That translates to players out performing their contracts. Garland and Konerko would only provide 4 million in relief to Arizona. That's not enough incentive to deal a HOF starting pitcher who still dominates every time he takes the mound and puts fannies in the seats every time he starts.

Any trade to the DBacks will likely involve Konerko, becuase they need someone at 1B. Any other players involved would be prospects or up and coming players like an Aaron Rowand who aren't very expensive.

If Jon Garland is involved in a trade, it will be to the Pirates for Jason Kendall.

It is my belief (and I don't think I'm drinking too much Kool-Aid) that the Sox are in a very good position to bring in RJ and give the DBacks the most in return. I predict

1) RJ and throwaway minor leaguer to the Sox for:
Paul Konerko, Sweeney or Anderson, Cotts or Diaz or Grilli. The Sox will negotiate an extension with RJ to keep him around for a second year. Remember, RJ needs at least 2 more years to achieve the stats he's looking for, and being on an American League team where he doesn't have to bat or run the bases will help.

2) The Sox will upgrade at catcher. Maybe Kendall, but also maybe Damian Miller is brought in as pat of the plan to lure RJ. Remember, Miller and RJ were teammates the year the DBacks won the world series. Signing Miller and upgrading 2B makes more sense than taking on Kendall's gigantic contract (even though Pitt will eat some of it). If the Sox trade for Kendall, it will involve sending Pitt Garland and Ben Davis, if the Sox sign Miller, Davis will be involved in another trade. Either way, Burke will be the backup catcher and Davis will be out.

3) Carlos Lee will get a contract extension some time early in the 2005 season. This organization has always loved C. Lee and he is every bit the "grinder" player that Kenny likes and plays defense and hits for average, which Ozzie likes.You're forgetting Richie Sexson. By bringing in PK, they woudn't re-sign Sexson. So the net savings for the D-backs is a lot more than $4M. They need young pitchers, but I don't think they'd settle for unproven guys like Cotts, Diaz or Grilli.

The other potential leadoff hitter I like is Juan Pierre. Does anyone have any idea what the Marlins might be looking for in return?

CarlosMay'sThumb
11-18-2004, 11:45 AM
1) RJ and throwaway minor leaguer to the Sox for:
Paul Konerko, Sweeney or Anderson, Cotts or Diaz or Grilli. The Sox will negotiate an extension with RJ to keep him around for a second year. Remember, RJ needs at least 2 more years to achieve the stats he's looking for, and being on an American League team where he doesn't have to bat or run the bases will help.
This is exactly the type of ridiculous trade that will do nothing but put a few hundred extra fannies in the seats on the nights RJ pitches. Why would you trade away 2 top prospects and an above average established major leaguer for a very old pitcher? I know his stats are great but he's here for 2 years tops and there is NO chance of winning a WS during that time. Age will eventually take its toll - even on the skinny RJ. It's the same dumb thing KW did with Garcia except at least Garcia will be here for a while and may still be around if and when the rest of the team gets better

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 12:43 PM
All business have budgets. If you increase spending in one area, you have to decrease it somewhere else unless you can create an additional predictable revenue stream... Why should this be any different?

That's easy:

1) better players = 2) more wins = 3) better attendance = 4) more money to pay those better players.

The problem with the Sox is that JR keeps insisting on starting at #3...

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 12:51 PM
And you are correct about people's complaint about the #5 spot but my point is this: The addition of Randy Johnson as a bonifide #1 ACE stud to the rotation far outweighs the slight downgrade from Jon Garland to Grilli. Grilli could develop into an 8-10 win pitcher (which is all your asking out of the #5 spot anyway) or KW might also be able to find a veteran #5 starter after Spring Training cuts are made. [color=teal]Paging Robert Person?:cool: [color=black]Finding a #5 is a much easier task then getting a pitcher like Randy Johnson.


If finding a #5 starter is so easy, then why haven't they found a reliable one in the past 5 years?

They just keep plugging in all these un-proven minor-league guys and hope for the best. Grilli could just be the next name on a long list...

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 01:01 PM
That's easy:

1) better players = 2) more wins = 3) better attendance = 4) more money to pay those better players.

The problem with the Sox is that JR keeps insisting on starting at #3...Easy to write. Not so easy to do. Everyone's trying to get better players. Unless you have a printing press in the basement, you don't have unlimited funds to do #1.

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 01:08 PM
Easy to write. Not so easy to do. Everyone's trying to get better players. Unless you have a printing press in the basement, you don't have unlimited funds to do #1.

Oh they've got it alright. They're just afraid that if they spend some of their own money they might not get it back. It's a great business approach but a horrible baseball approach.

I know that's easy to say because it's not my money they're spending but nothing else seems to be working...

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 01:09 PM
Oh they've got it alright. They're just afraid that if they spend some of their own money they might not get it back. It's a great business approach but a horrible baseball approach.

I know that's easy to say because it's not my money they're spending but nothing else seems to be working...Show me one example of an owner spending his own money on players.

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 01:20 PM
Show me one example of an owner spending his own money on players.

See Steinbrenner, George.

There's a reason that team was pulled from the dead in the 80's and early 90's to what they are today.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 01:24 PM
See Steinbrenner, George.

There's a reason that team was pulled from the dead in the 80's and early 90's to what they are today.He didn't spend any of his own money.

Paulwny
11-18-2004, 01:28 PM
See Steinbrenner, George.

There's a reason that team was pulled from the dead in the 80's and early 90's to what they are today.
I saw an interview with Roger Clemens on FOX this morning. He was asked how it was playing for Steinbrenner. His reply ~, " I really enjoyed playing for him. If he only had one dollar left in his wallet, he would spend it on the yankees."

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 01:34 PM
I saw an interview with Roger Clemens on FOX this morning. He was asked how it was playing for Steinbrenner. His reply ~, " I really enjoyed playing for him. If he only had one dollar left in his wallet, he would spend it on the yankees."

Thank you for backing up my point.



Ol' No. 2: I know for a fact that he spent his own money to repair Yankee Stadium when he bought the team. From what I understand the place was in worse shape than Comiskey Park just before it got torn down...

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 01:39 PM
Thank you for backing up my point.



Ol' No. 2: I know for a fact that he spent his own money to repair Yankee Stadium when he bought the team. From what I understand the place was in worse shape than Comiskey Park just before it got torn down...A capital investment in a stadium is completely different from spending money on payroll. And Roger Clemens notwithstanding, I've never heard of Steinbrenner or anyone else spending his own money on players salaries. Remember, it's a corporation. A few teams have gone heavily into debt, but that's corporation debt, not their own money. Big difference.

jabrch
11-18-2004, 01:54 PM
That's easy:

1) better players = 2) more wins = 3) better attendance = 4) more money to pay those better players.

The problem with the Sox is that JR keeps insisting on starting at #3...

The problem with your logic is that you can not conclude that spending $1 will get you X% more wins. You can't conclude that spending $1mm will get you X% more wins. And you can't conclude that spending $25mm will get you X% more wins. Making the jump from increased payroll to increased profits is a logical arguement - and it has merit. But it is not conclusive. JR has doubled the payroll since whatever year - recently. How much more wins has that gotten us? We are getting beaten by teams we outspend. Teams win the series spending less...blah blah blah...

No smart corporation that is currently an ongoing, viable, profitable concern will spend money from UNPROJECTABLE revenue streams. It just doesn't work that way. A wealthy individual might do it - but it is a decision made from the heart - not a smart business decision. That's not the move we will ever see from this ownership. (and increasing the amount that we bitch about it will have absolutely no effect on anything)

I wish it were different - but I don't see how it will be. This ownership group is not set up to spend any money other than what the business itself is currently generating. They are not going to each reach into their own pockets and take 1mm and spend it on player salaries. And ya know what - I don't blame em one bit. Cuz that 1mm may not get them a damn thing. If they buy 2 good FAs, and have some bad luck and get an injury or two, don't make the playoffs, then all of us are here bitching about the same old stuff - but they have shelled out a collective 20mm out of their own pockets. Is that going to be enough? No - the whiners and bitchers will insist that they spend ANOTHER 25mm the next year - for sure. If they don't, people will bitch the same way they do about Albert Belle. That they didn't want to spend the 25mm (even though they did) and that they are still cheap and stupid

I don't blame these guys one bit for not reaching into their own pockets. I own 1000 shares of Motorola. Motorola is struggling. But the board of directors is not calling me and asking me to send them a check for .01 per share - why is that? Cuz that's not the way the investment is set up. The same probably holds for the shareholders in the Sox. When they bought the team, they probably agreed that this was going to be a one time investment - not one that required annual cash INPUT.

Some people seem to easily forget that this is a business, owned by investors with reasonable expectation of return. It is not a public property who's sole purpose is to meet the needs of its fans.

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 02:56 PM
The problem with your logic is that you can not conclude that spending $1 will get you X% more wins. You can't conclude that spending $1mm will get you X% more wins. And you can't conclude that spending $25mm will get you X% more wins. Making the jump from increased payroll to increased profits is a logical arguement - and it has merit. But it is not conclusive. JR has doubled the payroll since whatever year - recently. How much more wins has that gotten us? We are getting beaten by teams we outspend. Teams win the series spending less...blah blah blah...

No smart corporation that is currently an ongoing, viable, profitable concern will spend money from UNPROJECTABLE revenue streams. It just doesn't work that way. A wealthy individual might do it - but it is a decision made from the heart - not a smart business decision. That's not the move we will ever see from this ownership. (and increasing the amount that we bitch about it will have absolutely no effect on anything)

I wish it were different - but I don't see how it will be. This ownership group is not set up to spend any money other than what the business itself is currently generating. They are not going to each reach into their own pockets and take 1mm and spend it on player salaries. And ya know what - I don't blame em one bit. Cuz that 1mm may not get them a damn thing. If they buy 2 good FAs, and have some bad luck and get an injury or two, don't make the playoffs, then all of us are here bitching about the same old stuff - but they have shelled out a collective 20mm out of their own pockets. Is that going to be enough? No - the whiners and bitchers will insist that they spend ANOTHER 25mm the next year - for sure. If they don't, people will bitch the same way they do about Albert Belle. That they didn't want to spend the 25mm (even though they did) and that they are still cheap and stupid

I don't blame these guys one bit for not reaching into their own pockets. I own 1000 shares of Motorola. Motorola is struggling. But the board of directors is not calling me and asking me to send them a check for .01 per share - why is that? Cuz that's not the way the investment is set up. The same probably holds for the shareholders in the Sox. When they bought the team, they probably agreed that this was going to be a one time investment - not one that required annual cash INPUT.

Some people seem to easily forget that this is a business, owned by investors with reasonable expectation of return. It is not a public property who's sole purpose is to meet the needs of its fans.

I know it's not a complete given that more money = more wins. I guess I forgot to put "in theory" above my comments.

I've said it before, JR is a great businessman, but a horrible team owner...

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 02:58 PM
A capital investment in a stadium is completely different from spending money on payroll. And Roger Clemens notwithstanding, I've never heard of Steinbrenner or anyone else spending his own money on players salaries. Remember, it's a corporation. A few teams have gone heavily into debt, but that's corporation debt, not their own money. Big difference.

I'd have to research it but it would not surpirse me that if George was willing to spend his own money on the stadium that he would do the same thing with payroll.

Of course now he doesn't have to worry about that.

wdelaney72
11-18-2004, 03:15 PM
This is exactly the type of ridiculous trade that will do nothing but put a few hundred extra fannies in the seats on the nights RJ pitches. Why would you trade away 2 top prospects and an above average established major leaguer for a very old pitcher? I know his stats are great but he's here for 2 years tops and there is NO chance of winning a WS during that time. Age will eventually take its toll - even on the skinny RJ. It's the same dumb thing KW did with Garcia except at least Garcia will be here for a while and may still be around if and when the rest of the team gets better
Why would you trade away 2 top prospects...? That's easy, they're prospects. Remember, Crede and Borchard were once top prospects. I would trade them in a heartbeat and not lose any sleep over it.

Until RJ starts showing real signs of wearing down, I believe he'll continue to be dominant. He's just a freak that way.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 03:16 PM
I'd have to research it but it would not surpirse me that if George was willing to spend his own money on the stadium that he would do the same thing with payroll.

Of course now he doesn't have to worry about that.There's an enormous difference. With a capital investment, you have a tangible asset which doesn't affect the overall net worth. Putting money into payroll is an expense. It's gone.

wdelaney72
11-18-2004, 03:18 PM
You're forgetting Richie Sexson. By bringing in PK, they woudn't re-sign Sexson. So the net savings for the D-backs is a lot more than $4M. They need young pitchers, but I don't think they'd settle for unproven guys like Cotts, Diaz or Grilli.

The other potential leadoff hitter I like is Juan Pierre. Does anyone have any idea what the Marlins might be looking for in return?
If I'm wrong, and they are willing to take Garland instead of Cotts, that's fine with me. I have no problem letting Judy walk. That frees up 3-4 million to sign a #5 starter with a set of stones. There are worst thinigs than having Garland as your #5 starter, but at 3-4 million a year, I think there's better options.

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 03:21 PM
There's an enormous difference. With a capital investment, you have a tangible asset which doesn't affect the overall net worth. Putting money into payroll is an expense. It's gone.

Not when the players you spend money on brings you 3 million fans a year.

George judges players by how many fannies they will put in the seats. He'd rather spend the money to put a "name" player on the field rather than a cheaper, lesser-known player with similiar stats.

surfdudes
11-18-2004, 03:41 PM
The problem with your logic is that you can not conclude that spending $1 will get you X% more wins. You can't conclude that spending $1mm will get you X% more wins. And you can't conclude that spending $25mm will get you X% more wins. Making the jump from increased payroll to increased profits is a logical arguement - and it has merit. But it is not conclusive. JR has doubled the payroll since whatever year - recently. How much more wins has that gotten us? We are getting beaten by teams we outspend. Teams win the series spending less...blah blah blah...

No smart corporation that is currently an ongoing, viable, profitable concern will spend money from UNPROJECTABLE revenue streams. It just doesn't work that way. A wealthy individual might do it - but it is a decision made from the heart - not a smart business decision. That's not the move we will ever see from this ownership. (and increasing the amount that we bitch about it will have absolutely no effect on anything)

I wish it were different - but I don't see how it will be. This ownership group is not set up to spend any money other than what the business itself is currently generating. They are not going to each reach into their own pockets and take 1mm and spend it on player salaries. And ya know what - I don't blame em one bit. Cuz that 1mm may not get them a damn thing. If they buy 2 good FAs, and have some bad luck and get an injury or two, don't make the playoffs, then all of us are here bitching about the same old stuff - but they have shelled out a collective 20mm out of their own pockets. Is that going to be enough? No - the whiners and bitchers will insist that they spend ANOTHER 25mm the next year - for sure. If they don't, people will bitch the same way they do about Albert Belle. That they didn't want to spend the 25mm (even though they did) and that they are still cheap and stupid

I don't blame these guys one bit for not reaching into their own pockets. I own 1000 shares of Motorola. Motorola is struggling. But the board of directors is not calling me and asking me to send them a check for .01 per share - why is that? Cuz that's not the way the investment is set up. The same probably holds for the shareholders in the Sox. When they bought the team, they probably agreed that this was going to be a one time investment - not one that required annual cash INPUT.

Some people seem to easily forget that this is a business, owned by investors with reasonable expectation of return. It is not a public property who's sole purpose is to meet the needs of its fans.
I am angry at this commentary, but mainly because its truthful and I hate being reminded why the White Sox have a long road ahead of them with JR signing the checks. I am sure that as an investor and sucessfull businessman; JR and his Cronies( these relationships are alot more personal than we think, it isn't like silent investors buying stock on Ameritrade) are happy sticking to a budget, pulling decent attendance every year, locking in a profit for all vested interests, and also gaining solid equity in the value of the club as it increases year after year after year. As a businessman, one would never alter this formula, unless necessary .... What galls me is that, like any business, he and the investors no longer have to reach into their own pockets for money- They can borrow, reinvest, find new investors, sell shares, ie- create alot of cash flow if they ever decided that they wanted to "go for it". I am sick and tired of 2- 3 million dollars, or 1 additional year on a contract standing in the way of the Sox aquiring the quality of player that could put us solidly in contention. I'll bet my home that when and if JR decides to sell the team, all potential buyers will be wooed with the great "upside" that the Sox as a business have. 3rd largest City in the U.S., Major TV market untapped, perenial almost contender that with a little money invested in payroll, they will be on top, etc...etc..etc...
That is what angers me. May the ghost of Gene Autrey invade he sleep until he gets the message to start winning or start selling.

cornball
11-18-2004, 03:54 PM
I am angry at this commentary, but mainly because its truthful and I hate being reminded why the White Sox have a long road ahead of them with JR signing the checks. I am sure that as an investor and sucessfull businessman; JR and his Cronies( these relationships are alot more personal than we think, it isn't like silent investors buying stock on Ameritrade) are happy sticking to a budget, pulling decent attendance every year, locking in a profit for all vested interests, and also gaining solid equity in the value of the club as it increases year after year after year. As a businessman, one would never alter this formula, unless necessary .... What galls me is that, like any business, he and the investors no longer have to reach into their own pockets for money- They can borrow, reinvest, find new investors, sell shares, ie- create alot of cash flow if they ever decided that they wanted to "go for it". I am sick and tired of 2- 3 million dollars, or 1 additional year on a contract standing in the way of the Sox aquiring the quality of player that could put us solidly in contention. I'll bet my home that when and if JR decides to sell the team, all potential buyers will be wooed with the great "upside" that the Sox as a business have. 3rd largest City in the U.S., Major TV market untapped, perenial almost contender that with a little money invested in payroll, they will be on top, etc...etc..etc...
That is what angers me. May the ghost of Gene Autrey invade he sleep until he gets the message to start winning or start selling.
You must keep in mind, owners of major league teams (historically) have made a fortune elsewhere. To do this you need to take chances and sometimes put money into the business to reap major benefits down the road. If you truly believe a team in this day and age can routine challenge for the pennant with a 60-65 million payroll, then your a better person than I am.

Why would anyone want to purchase a major league team if not to pull all stops to win? This ownership is not serious.

Iwritecode
11-18-2004, 03:56 PM
Why would anyone want to purchase a major league team if not to pull all stops to win? This ownership is not serious.

You couldn't be more correct.

It seems to me that the Sox are more like a little hobby for JR. Just something that he likes to play around with...

surfdudes
11-18-2004, 04:06 PM
You couldn't be more correct.

It seems to me that the Sox are more like a little hobby for JR. Just something that he likes to play around with...
And he has like 3 total baseball molecules in his entire body. I have to leave now, this is getting too depressing..........

Lip Man 1
11-18-2004, 06:18 PM
Jabrch says: "The problem with your logic is that you can not conclude that spending $1 will get you X% more wins."

So of course the Sox couldn't possibly take a chance for once...no chances at all because Jabrch and his kin at the **** club can't be guaranteed success.

If you can't put it in writing... guaranteed, it's not worth it! LOL.

Man I'd hate for you to be my business partner, we'd be stuck in mediocrity forever.

Lip

Mickster
11-18-2004, 06:25 PM
Jabrch says: "The problem with your logic is that you can not conclude that spending $1 will get you X% more wins."

So of course the Sox couldn't possibly take a chance for once...no chances at all because Jabrch and his kin at the **** club can't be guaranteed success.

If you can't put it in writing... guaranteed, it's not worth it! LOL.

Man I'd hate for you to be my business partner, we'd be stuck in mediocrity forever.

Lip
Lip,

Out of curiosity, how many times have you seen the sox play in person in the last 5 years?

Paulwny
11-18-2004, 06:27 PM
Jabrch says: "The problem with your logic is that you can not conclude that spending $1 will get you X% more wins."

So of course the Sox couldn't possibly take a chance for once...no chances at all because Jabrch and his kin at the **** club can't be guaranteed success.

If you can't put it in writing... guaranteed, it's not worth it! LOL.

Man I'd hate for you to be my business partner, we'd be stuck in mediocrity forever.

Lip
Yep, no industry should ever waste money on research. The results aren't guaranteed.

Lip Man 1
11-18-2004, 06:33 PM
At home zero...on the West Coast six times.

Lip

CWSGuy406
11-18-2004, 06:54 PM
I've also read the complaints that say you just CAN'T pay a guy $16 million who is 41 years old. These are people who are failing to see who that 41 year old player happens to be and are scared to death that we somehow are getting damaged goods even though the guy did nothing but dominate last year. Anyone who got that many wins with a team as inept as the D'backs were last year should open everyone's eyes as to the caliber of pitcher Johnson is.

And you are correct about people's complaint about the #5 spot but my point is this: The addition of Randy Johnson as a bonifide #1 ACE stud to the rotation far outweighs the slight downgrade from Jon Garland to Grilli. Grilli could develop into an 8-10 win pitcher (which is all your asking out of the #5 spot anyway) or KW might also be able to find a veteran #5 starter after Spring Training cuts are made. Paging Robert Person?:cool: Finding a #5 is a much easier task then getting a pitcher like Randy Johnson. Garland is replacable, pitchers like Randy Johnson don't come around very often (especially to the South Side). With Randy Johnson, the White Sox would have that ace in the hole and would put themselves in a position to not only win a division title but possibly go far in the playoffs. It's all about the starting pitching gents.
I totally agree with you about your point about Johnson's age. So what? Nolan Ryan pitched (IIRC) well into his 40's, as well as Roger Clemens. Maddux is still pitching well at his older age, same with Schilling...

Just one disagreement. I think that if we were to choose between Diaz and Grilli for the fifth starter spot, I'd go with Diaz. Diaz has a history of not walking guys, and, if one wants to succeed at US Cellular, you cannot walk people. Grilli has no control, delivered ZERO quality starts. He's a bullpen arm at best for this team.

It's Randy Johnson, folks. Guys like these rarely come around. Imagine throwing Johnson, Buehrle, and Garcia out for the first three games of a (potential) ALDS. Awesome, huh?

dcb33
11-18-2004, 07:13 PM
I totally agree with you about your point about Johnson's age. So what? Nolan Ryan pitched (IIRC) well into his 40's, as well as Roger Clemens. Maddux is still pitching well at his older age, same with Schilling...

Just one disagreement. I think that if we were to choose between Diaz and Grilli for the fifth starter spot, I'd go with Diaz. Diaz has a history of not walking guys, and, if one wants to succeed at US Cellular, you cannot walk people. Grilli has no control, delivered ZERO quality starts. He's a bullpen arm at best for this team.

It's Randy Johnson, folks. Guys like these rarely come around. Imagine throwing Johnson, Buehrle, and Garcia out for the first three games of a (potential) ALDS. Awesome, huh?You have to get to the playoffs first, and there's no way that will happen if you are relying on Diaz and Grilli to carry the weight as a 5th starter.
If the Sox would've had a mediocre 10-12 game winner last year in the 5th spot, we would've easily won the division. The 5th starter mess this past year also made the bullpen much worse because every fifth day you'd have a guy that could only be relied upon for 4, maybe 5 innings, which really took it's toll on the pen as the season went on.
Trading Randy Johnson gives us an ace, but it creates more problems than it solves. We'd still need another starting pitcher to fill the rotation, and we'd have to find a 1Bman and a way to replace Konerko's production. I don't want to hear about how Frank Thomas can play 1B. He's old, injury prone and doesn't want to play the position anyway.
Given the Sox self-imposed small/middle market status, I think the move would just be too risky considering his age. Teams like Oakland and Minnesota don't win by breaking the bank to land a superstar at all costs, they rely on solid contributions from many different people. I think in this case it'd be better to stick with Garland and Konerko, and sign a decent FA starting pitcher with numbers similar to Garland's. It'd take pressure off of our bullpen and would give the orginazation much more flexibility in pursuing other guys to fill some of the other holes we have.

dcb33
11-18-2004, 07:30 PM
Why would you trade away 2 top prospects...? That's easy, they're prospects. Remember, Crede and Borchard were once top prospects. I would trade them in a heartbeat and not lose any sleep over it.

Until RJ starts showing real signs of wearing down, I believe he'll continue to be dominant. He's just a freak that way.
It would be so White Sox if he would completely break down the second week in May or something and end up calling it our career after we traded for him in the offseason.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-19-2004, 02:48 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1920544


Arizona hasn't talked to Johnson or put him out, but the White Sox have been very aggressive, offering Paul Konerko (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5908) and Jon Garland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6396). One D-Backs official asked for Aaron Rowand (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6742) and didn't get a no, but Randy likely will say no to the White Sox, leaving the Yanks, Cardinals and Angels (who are trying to move pitchers' salaries like Ramon Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317)). Arizona GM Joe Garagiola keeps trying to sign Richie Sexson (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5931), with little success.
__________________________________________________ ________________

I hope Unit says no, definately that Rowand DOESN'T GO.

With Rowand gone, would we see this?

RF Carl Everett (until he breaks down than Gload / Timo time)
CF Willie Harris
LF Carlos Lee

FightingBillini
11-19-2004, 03:23 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1920544


Arizona hasn't talked to Johnson or put him out, but the White Sox have been very aggressive, offering Paul Konerko (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5908) and Jon Garland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6396). One D-Backs official asked for Aaron Rowand (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6742) and didn't get a no, but Randy likely will say no to the White Sox, leaving the Yanks, Cardinals and Angels (who are trying to move pitchers' salaries like Ramon Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317)). Arizona GM Joe Garagiola keeps trying to sign Richie Sexson (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5931), with little success.
__________________________________________________ ________________

I hope Unit says no, definately that Rowand DOESN'T GO.

With Rowand gone, would we see this?

RF Carl Everett (until he breaks down than Gload / Timo time)
CF Willie Harris
LF Carlos Lee
It was either earlier in this thread or in another one, but someone posted that article already. Boston Gammons is a senile old fool. The fact that he said we wont get Johnson actually makes us much more likely to land him. As for Rowand, no way I throw him in. Besides MB and Garcia, Rowand is the only guy untradable in my book.
I take that back, I would trade Rowand for Johnson STRAIGHT UP.

jabrch
11-19-2004, 09:38 AM
Man I'd hate for you to be my business partner, we'd be stuck in mediocrity forever.

Fortunately someone else quoted you, or I'd have missed this gem. (I took your own advice by the way and put you on ignore. I miss reading a few of your posts that I really think are great, but I don't miss reading the other 99.9%)

Lip, for a guy who a few weeks ago proudly bragged that he owns no investments, has no stocks and no bonds, no retirement funding, and lives hand-to-mouth to then tell me that he'd "HATE TO BE MY BUSINESS PARTNER BECAUSE WE'D BE STUCK IN MEDIOCRITY" is completely and entirely laughable. Tell me Lip, about your great experience in business that would even make me consider taking one penny and backing a Lip managed business? By what I see here, it would be broke before ever opening the door. Lip would try and solve every single problem by writing a bigger check rather than by addressing the core issues. Lip's fantasy world involves spending 30mm or so on salary for one year - leaving the team in financial peril unless fans show up at whatever rate is necesary to recoup that 30mm. It also leaves the team with longer term peril - since the contracts that will be signed won't be one year deals. Brillant Lip - then what? Then go back to your partners and ask each to pull 1mm out of their pockets? Take on debt? What's the next step? Come on Lip, lets here it - what are your REAL QUALIFICATIONS to discuss a business? You'd hate to be my partner Lip? Other than a grouchy, know-it-all who can write, why would I even consider you as a business partner? :D:


My Quals are available on request...

Lip Man 1
11-19-2004, 12:18 PM
Jabrch:

That's what chapter 11 is for! Hey if it works for millionairs it can work for average Joe's.

Jabrch and **** rooting for the business side of baseball since 1981!

Lip

Jabroni
11-19-2004, 12:21 PM
Fortunately someone else quoted you, or I'd have missed this gem. (I took your own advice by the way and put you on ignore. I miss reading a few of your posts that I really think are great, but I don't miss reading the other 99.9%)

Lip, for a guy who a few weeks ago proudly bragged that he owns no investments, has no stocks and no bonds, no retirement funding, and lives hand-to-mouth to then tell me that he'd "HATE TO BE MY BUSINESS PARTNER BECAUSE WE'D BE STUCK IN MEDIOCRITY" is completely and entirely laughable. Tell me Lip, about your great experience in business that would even make me consider taking one penny and backing a Lip managed business? By what I see here, it would be broke before ever opening the door. Lip would try and solve every single problem by writing a bigger check rather than by addressing the core issues. Lip's fantasy world involves spending 30mm or so on salary for one year - leaving the team in financial peril unless fans show up at whatever rate is necesary to recoup that 30mm. It also leaves the team with longer term peril - since the contracts that will be signed won't be one year deals. Brillant Lip - then what? Then go back to your partners and ask each to pull 1mm out of their pockets? Take on debt? What's the next step? Come on Lip, lets here it - what are your REAL QUALIFICATIONS to discuss a business? You'd hate to be my partner Lip? Other than a grouchy, know-it-all who can write, why would I even consider you as a business partner? :D:


My Quals are available on request...Agreed. All this guy does is bitch about the Sox. It's pretty annoying. I think I will put him on ignore as well.

Mickster
11-19-2004, 12:22 PM
Jabrch:

That's what chapter 11 is for! Hey if it works for millionairs it can work for average Joe's.

Jabrch and **** rooting for the business side of baseball since 1981!

Lip
FOLIP: Spending other people's money since 1981.....

jabrch
11-20-2004, 05:10 AM
FOLIP: Spending other people's money since 1981.....

Still glad other people respond to this - I imainge I miss a lot of great posts these days...too bad...

So Lip's solution - let me get this straight - is to buy a business and run it into the ground...then bankrupt it. And he is telling me he is glad he's not my partner? Well gollllyy...... The man who openly admits to having saved nothing, and invested nothing, and leaving hand to mouth is telling me that he'd just buy a business and run it into the ground. Why is this not at all surprising?

You don't get it Lip. Baseball IS a business. It has been for a long time. And people don't just bankrupt 350mm companies on a crapshoot whim that they can select who the FAs will be who wont get freak injuries or won't suddenly crash and burn. They don't spend revenues that they don't have, and they don't for the most part, spend money out of their own pockets. (certainly the teams that win regularly don't...)

cornball
11-20-2004, 08:43 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1920544


Arizona hasn't talked to Johnson or put him out, but the White Sox have been very aggressive, offering Paul Konerko (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5908) and Jon Garland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6396). One D-Backs official asked for Aaron Rowand (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6742) and didn't get a no, but Randy likely will say no to the White Sox, leaving the Yanks, Cardinals and Angels (who are trying to move pitchers' salaries like Ramon Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317)). Arizona GM Joe Garagiola keeps trying to sign Richie Sexson (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5931), with little success.
__________________________________________________ ________________

I hope Unit says no, definately that Rowand DOESN'T GO.

With Rowand gone, would we see this?

RF Carl Everett (until he breaks down than Gload / Timo time)
CF Willie Harris
LF Carlos Lee
ESPN is saying that RJ wants to go to a contender. Therefore, they assume he would say no to the Sox. The preception of the Sox is that they are not a contender, thus having little or no shot at any of the top FA or in this case a chance to trade for RJ, who is technically a FA because AZ will not keep him.

Do any of you think the Sox are true contenders, I mean seriously for the pennant?

Lip Man 1
11-20-2004, 01:22 PM
Jabrch and his ****. Rooting for Uncle Jerry's wallet since 1981.

PHG....do ya think it's time for another round of 'Take Me Out To Uncle Jerry's Wallet?'
Lip

I want Mags back
11-22-2004, 04:35 PM
hhhmmm, that still leaves a hole in the rotation, Oh I forgot about that ace Grilli!!!NO IT DOESN'T

1. JOHNSON
2. GARCIA
3. BUEHRLE
4. CONTRARAS check spelling
5. Schoenweis will be fine in the 5 hole

OG4LIFE
11-22-2004, 05:10 PM
NO IT DOESN'T

1. JOHNSON
2. GARCIA
3. BUEHRLE
4. CONTRARAS check spelling
5. Schoenweis will be fine in the 5 hole
lol... welcome to the board n00b-

schoeneweis is a FA, and a b----. just ask ozzie!

i dont want anyone on the team that is unwilling to contribute in a way he is asked (shoney's little 'if i go to the bullpen i want to be traded'). he's a cancer, and after the first month of the season, he was his usual, 2 pitch, bum self.

NO

Paulwny
11-24-2004, 02:59 PM
Put a nail in the coffin, unless JR frees up money for a contract extension.

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
Johnson is entering the final year of a contract that will pay him $16 million in 2005 with an additional $1 million tacked on as a personal services agreement. Of the $16 million, $6 million is deferred. However, Johnson has made clear he would seek a contract extension in order to waive his no-trade protection.

Ol' No. 2
11-24-2004, 03:00 PM
Put a nail in the coffin, unless JR frees up money for a contract extension.

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
Johnson is entering the final year of a contract that will pay him $16 million in 2005 with an additional $1 million tacked on as a personal services agreement. Of the $16 million, $6 million is deferred. However, Johnson has made clear he would seek a contract extension in order to waive his no-trade protection.Why is this a problem?

Mickster
11-24-2004, 03:02 PM
Put a nail in the coffin, unless JR frees up money for a contract extension.

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
Johnson is entering the final year of a contract that will pay him $16 million in 2005 with an additional $1 million tacked on as a personal services agreement. Of the $16 million, $6 million is deferred. However, Johnson has made clear he would seek a contract extension in order to waive his no-trade protection.
I think I (and the sox brass) would like a contract extension. It makes trading PK and JG for him all that much better IMHO.

Paulwny
11-24-2004, 03:09 PM
I think I (and the sox brass) would like a contract extension. It makes trading PK and JG for him all that much better IMHO.
Maybe, but AZ may be looking to get a better deal. The AZ Valley Tribune and the Newark Ledger are reporting that AZ will trade RJ straight-up for Vasquez if NY picks up part of Vazquez's contract. It looks like the ball may be in King George's hands .

Mickster
11-24-2004, 03:11 PM
Maybe, but AZ may be looking to get a better deal. The AZ Valley Tribune and the Newark Ledger are reporting that AZ will trade RJ straight-up for Vasquez if NY picks up part of Vazquez's contract. It looks like the ball may be in King George's hands .
My unerstanding of the NY/AZ deal is that AZ does not feel comfortable w/ Vasquez at his price even if NY picks up 1/2 of his salary (Which they are waaaay under at this point in time). I will not rule out George, but don't rule out KW as well. KW is even more crazy!

Paulwny
11-24-2004, 03:24 PM
My unerstanding of the NY/AZ deal is that AZ does not feel comfortable w/ Vasquez at his price even if NY picks up 1/2 of his salary (Which they are waaaay under at this point in time). I will not rule out George, but don't rule out KW as well. KW is even more crazy!
You maybe correct but, both reports are from today's papers. The big problem is RJ's list of teams that he's agreeale to. The list may be different than the one from the summer. There doesn't appear to be any info on these teams this go-round.

NotSoBlackSox1
11-24-2004, 03:46 PM
If that article is right how do you not take the deal from St. Louis?

Paulwny
11-24-2004, 03:50 PM
If that article is right how do you not take the deal from St. Louis?

St. Louis won't go for a contract extension.

Ol' No. 2
11-24-2004, 06:48 PM
Maybe, but AZ may be looking to get a better deal. The AZ Valley Tribune and the Newark Ledger are reporting that AZ will trade RJ straight-up for Vasquez if NY picks up part of Vazquez's contract. It looks like the ball may be in King George's hands .Isn't this basically the deal the D-backs turned down last year?

Paulwny
11-24-2004, 07:07 PM
Isn't this basically the deal the D-backs turned down last year?
From what I've been reading lately, Vasquez wasn't offered last summer. Supposedly, the yanks felt they needed him for the play-offs due to the uncertainty of their starters.