PDA

View Full Version : KW on Baseball Tonight (Today)


faneidde
12-10-2004, 03:07 PM
I just caught part of an interview with KW on Baseball Tonight. He said some pretty interesting things and one really assinine thing:

1. He said Jermaine Dye had gotten several calls from teams willing to beat the White Sox offer for him while he was taking his physical. Dye told the teams that he already verbally agreed to a cotract with the Sox. Sounds like we have a class individual on our hands.

2. When asked about his comments about not signing any Boras clients, he said that sometimes his big mouth and openess gets him in trouble sometimes.

He also said something that I found absurb:

1. He said something like the White Sox operate different that most teams in MLB because they already have their roster for 2008 and 2009 planned out. Since the Sox have no one signed past 2007 (I think), how the hell can this be? And what about prospects who could develop? Those plans can't be revealed though, because then we'd be on double secret probation. Give me a break KW.

I didn't catch the whole interview. Anyone hear anything I missed?

faneidde
12-10-2004, 03:09 PM
Also, Gammons just said that the White Sox had offered Konerko and Garland to the Yankees for Vasquez, but hadn't heard anything back in a few days. Take it for what you will, but we'd better be getting some serious money in that deal if it happens.

munchman33
12-10-2004, 03:09 PM
I just caught part of an interview with KW on Baseball Tonight. He said some pretty interesting things and one really assinine thing:

1. He said Jermaine Dye had gotten several calls from teams willing to beat the White Sox offer for him while he was taking his physical. Dye told the teams that he already verbally agreed to a cotract with the Sox. Sounds like we have a class individual on our hands.

2. When asked about his comments about not signing any Boras clients, he said that sometimes his big mouth and openess gets him in trouble sometimes.

He also said something that I found absurb:

1. He said something like the White Sox operate different that most teams in MLB because they already have their roster for 2008 and 2009 planned out. Since the Sox have no one signed past 2007 (I think), how the hell can this be? And what about prospects who could develop? Those plans can't be revealed though, because then we'd be on double secret probation. Give me a break KW.

I didn't catch the whole interview. Anyone hear anything I missed?
I've heard Kenny reference the "big board" many times. Just because someone is not under contract doesn't mean Kenny doesn't intend them to still be with the team.

And don't forget option years.

Rocklive99
12-10-2004, 03:12 PM
No real news from KW: they've parted ways with Magglio, the Dye story about how he rejected 4 better deals because he already had a deal with us, he disagrees about how Boras values his clients and KW describes himself as being open, they like to keep quiet and be under the radar

Kind of interesting part that the White Sox have a down the line board with the team roster for 2008 and 2009, and the only time it's really been broken up was with the trading of Olivo. So I guess this means they never expected to have Maggs back?

Right now they are talking about the NYY ARI SOX 3 way deal on the rumor thing: Gammons said it would be both Konerko and Garland to the Dbacks, WHAT?!?!?!?!?!!?

HaroMaster87
12-10-2004, 03:14 PM
Also, Gammons just said that the White Sox had offered Konerko and Garland to the Yankees for Vasquez, but hadn't heard anything back in a few days. Take it for what you will, but we'd better be getting some serious money in that deal if it happens.
That is WAAAAAAAAAY too much to give up for vasquez...2 starters (one of which is an All Star) for a middle of the rotation guy...Thats a bad deal.

Magglios_Girl
12-10-2004, 03:18 PM
Also, Gammons just said that the White Sox had offered Konerko and Garland to the Yankees for Vasquez, but hadn't heard anything back in a few days. Take it for what you will, but we'd better be getting some serious money in that deal if it happens.
It was actually like this:

RJ to the Yankees...Vasquez to the Sox...Konerko and Garland to the D-Backs.

SoxFan76
12-10-2004, 03:18 PM
That would be a HORRIBLE deal. You lose guaranteed 12-15 wins, and a should-of-been All-Star for a 3rd, possibly 4th starter?!??!?!?! KW CANNOT be that stupid. Wow, I'm kind of scared that this will really go down. It can't, no way is he that dumb.

Not to mention that still leaves a hole in the 5th starter spot.

Magglios_Girl
12-10-2004, 03:20 PM
Not to mention that still leaves a hole in the 5th starter spot.
Just what I was thinking...
:?:

Mickster
12-10-2004, 03:23 PM
That would be a HORRIBLE deal. You lose guaranteed 12-15 wins, and a should-of-been All-Star for a 3rd, possibly 4th starter?!??!?!?! KW CANNOT be that stupid. Wow, I'm kind of scared that this will really go down. It can't, no way is he that dumb.

Not to mention that still leaves a hole in the 5th starter spot.
This also frees up some cash. Konerko at $8.5M, Garland at $3.5M is $12M in salary savings. NYY was rumored to be eating 1/3 of Vazquez' contract which would put him in the $7M/Yr. Range. This deal frees up about $5M to be used this year...........not that I am in favor of the deal as it currently stands.

kittle42
12-10-2004, 03:24 PM
This trade happening may be the last straw for me. It solves nothing.

Mickster
12-10-2004, 03:25 PM
This trade happening may be the last straw for me. It solves nothing.
I tend to agree with you.... :(:

Flight #24
12-10-2004, 03:25 PM
This also frees up some cash. Konerko at $8.5M, Garland at $3.5M is $12M in salary savings. NYY was rumored to be eating 1/3 of Vazquez' contract which would put him in the $7M/Yr. Range. This deal frees up about $5M to be used this year...........not that I am in favor of the deal as it currently stands.
So using KW's sstatement that they have enough $$$ now for a bench player, and the widely rumored $75mil payroll budget, we have $3-5mil available right now. Do the deal and you free up $5mil more, leaving a total of $10mil.

So - would you trade Konerko+Garland for Vazquez+Clement? Vazquez+JD Drew?

I would.

munchman33
12-10-2004, 03:28 PM
Well, Vazquez is better than Garland in the sense that he was dominant until last year. But I wouldn't do this unless it clears monies to pick up another good starter (perhaps an Odalis Perez). But I don't see the Yankees giving us money and the Diamondbacks money.

Mickster
12-10-2004, 03:30 PM
Well, Vazquez is better than Garland in the sense that he was dominant until last year. But I wouldn't do this unless it clears monies to pick up another good starter (perhaps an Odalis Perez). But I don't see the Yankees giving us money and the Diamondbacks money.
They don't just hand out cash.... The Yanks will be sending $$ each year to the team that ends up with Javier, regardless of which team that may be.

PorkChopExpress
12-10-2004, 03:31 PM
I could see this happening contingent upon KW getting another big name already aboard (Renteria perhaps), hence having to free up a little money (losing Konerko & Garland), while also getting a little money (from the yanks in the trade) and picking up a decent pitcher (Vasquez). But you're right that it still leaves a hole in the 5-spot. The more I hear from these guys though, I don't think KW sees that hole.

faneidde
12-10-2004, 03:33 PM
Gammons also said this is dead on ESPN.com.

Linky (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1943079)

Paulwny
12-10-2004, 03:39 PM
The yanks will only eat so much. They don't want to appear to be taken in this type of deal.

From the NY Post;



When the Johnson trade talks stopped Dec. 1, it was because the Yankees balked at almost every part of all proposals made by the Diamondbacks. However, the Yankees didn't scream over Arizona asking for the $19.5 million difference between Johnson's $16 million salary and the $35.5 million left on Javier Vazquez' deal. In fact, they offered to give the Diamondbacks in the area of $12 to $13 million.

But after the Diamondbacks signed third baseman Troy Glaus yesterday to a four-year deal worth $45 million and are close to inking pitcher Russ Ortiz to a three-year contract for $27 million, the Yankees don't view the Diamondbacks as cash-strapped. "This proves they don't need the money," an industry source said of the Diamondbacks.

Fungo
12-10-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by faneidde
Also, Gammons just said that the White Sox had offered Konerko and Garland to the Yankees for Vasquez, but hadn't heard anything back in a few days. Take it for what you will, but we'd better be getting some serious money in that deal if it happens.



It was actually like this:

RJ to the Yankees...Vasquez to the Sox...Konerko and Garland to the D-Backs. Could you imagine Jon pitching at Yankees Stadium? The guy can't handle to fans here when he has a bad outing. The guy would piss down his leg every time he took the mound in NY.

samram
12-10-2004, 03:48 PM
Could you imagine Jon pitching at Yankees Stadium? The guy can't handle to fans here when he has a bad outing. The guy would piss down his leg every time he took the mound in NY.
I don't think the deal is for PK and JG to end up with the Yanks- this will only happen if RJ goes to New York.

GiveMeSox
12-10-2004, 04:01 PM
No real news from KW: they've parted ways with Magglio, the Dye story about how he rejected 4 better deals because he already had a deal with us, he disagrees about how Boras values his clients and KW describes himself as being open, they like to keep quiet and be under the radar

Kind of interesting part that the White Sox have a down the line board with the team roster for 2008 and 2009, and the only time it's really been broken up was with the trading of Olivo. So I guess this means they never expected to have Maggs back?

Right now they are talking about the NYY ARI SOX 3 way deal on the rumor thing: Gammons said it would be both Konerko and Garland to the Dbacks, WHAT?!?!?!?!?!!?
Say what , we were willing to offer Konerko and Garland for RJ but please not for Vazquez. RJ is different hes lights out and HOF bound. Vazquez is a #3 starter making about 3 or 4 mil more than hes worth. Hes is not worth both Garland and Konerko, hes hardley worth Konerko. I would rather trade a package of non-roster players like grilli/diaz to get vazquez here. Let those prospects to go to AZ and RJ to the yanks. Give us vazquez and some cash. Heck we will even thrown in there favorite non Andersen prospect.

Fungo
12-10-2004, 04:11 PM
I don't think the deal is for PK and JG to end up with the Yanks- this will only happen if RJ goes to New York.
I understand, that is why I quoted both messages. Magglios_Girl already cleared that up.

santo=dorf
12-10-2004, 04:11 PM
That would be a HORRIBLE deal. You lose guaranteed 12-15 wins, and a should-of-been All-Star for a 3rd, possibly 4th starter?!??!?!?! KW CANNOT be that stupid. Wow, I'm kind of scared that this will really go down. It can't, no way is he that dumb.

Not to mention that still leaves a hole in the 5th starter spot.:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

You obviously have NEVER seen Vazquez pitch with the exception of the second half of 2004. Vazquez was an all-star in 2004 too (I know it should've been Buehrle :angry: .)

Vazquez is a 3rd or 4th starter yet Garland is a lock to give you 12-15 wins?

:rolling: :rolling:

munchman33
12-10-2004, 04:17 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

You obviously have NEVER seen Vazquez pitch with the exception of the second half of 2004.

Vazquez is a 3rd or 4th starter yet Garland is a lock to give you 12-15 wins?

:rolling: :rolling:
Exactly. And the people who are ridiculous defending Jon Garland's production are the same ones who bitch about it during the season. Vasquez is a number one who had a bad two months. For the first time in his career.

I wonder what percentage of people who wouldn't take this slight risk in Vasquez were clamoring for KW to offer Gagglio arbitration.

tstrike2000
12-10-2004, 05:00 PM
Exactly. And the people who are ridiculous defending Jon Garland's production are the same ones who bitch about it during the season. Vasquez is a number one who had a bad two months. For the first time in his career.

I wonder what percentage of people who wouldn't take this slight risk in Vasquez were clamoring for KW to offer Gagglio arbitration.I would have to agree with you munchman, Vazquez had two bad months. 3 years prior his ERA was 4.05 and then dipped into the 3.00's and 2.90. This guy can throw 4 pitches for strikes. Garland has yet to come even close to keeping his ERA near 4.00. However, we can't trade Garland to get another starting pitcher because we need Garland in the 5th spot. Also, don't forget Contreras, if he doesn't control his walks, his ERA will be back around 5 or higher.

santo=dorf
12-10-2004, 05:05 PM
I love Hot Stove Baseball.



https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bschalle/www/KWstealth.jpg

SoxFan76
12-10-2004, 05:07 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

You obviously have NEVER seen Vazquez pitch with the exception of the second half of 2004. Vazquez was an all-star in 2004 too (I know it should've been Buehrle :angry: .)

Vazquez is a 3rd or 4th starter yet Garland is a lock to give you 12-15 wins?

:rolling: :rolling:
Fair enough, you are right. I never followed JV too much. But, why would we give away guaranteed 12, possibly 15 wins, (and I'm not taking back my original statement when I said guaranteed 12-15 wins, I seriously think JG can win 15 games), to get 3, maybe 4 more wins and STILL need a 5th starter? Not to mention giving away 30+ HR and 100+ RBIs from PK on a team which has already lost a lot of pop. (Jose, Maggs, most likely Frank for awhile)

If this deal went down, the Sox would only be moving backwards.

kittle42
12-10-2004, 05:07 PM
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bschalle/www/KWstealth.jpg
Just awesome.

rdivaldi
12-10-2004, 05:09 PM
Exactly. And the people who are ridiculous defending Jon Garland's production are the same ones who bitch about it during the season. Vasquez is a number one who had a bad two months. For the first time in his career.
Amen...

santo=dorf
12-10-2004, 05:12 PM
Fair enough, you are right. I never followed JV too much. But, why would we give away guaranteed 12, possibly 15 wins, (and I'm not taking back my original statement when I said guaranteed 12-15 wins, I seriously think JG can win 15 games), to get 3, maybe 4 more wins and STILL need a 5th starter? Not to mention giving away 30+ HR and 100+ RBIs from PK on a team which has already lost a lot of pop. (Jose, Maggs, most likely Frank for awhile)

If this deal went down, the Sox would only be moving backwards.I know Konerko provides alot of pop, but we really need to improve our rotation. I don't like the idea of giving up both Garland and Konerko unless we get a ton of $$$ from the Yanks to sign someone like Wilson Alvarez. Take a look at Konerko's splits from this past season. He hit only .239 on the road. :o:

Buehrle
Garcia
Vazquez
Contreras
Alvarez

:gulp:

EDIT: You also say that you think Garland "can" win 15 games. How many games do you think Vazquez could win with the Sox? He won 16 games with the Expos in 2001, who only won 68 games.

nitetrain8601
12-10-2004, 05:14 PM
Again, I honestly believe there are certain posters who bitch just to bitch.

ilsox7
12-10-2004, 05:22 PM
I know Konerko provides alot of pop, but we really need to improve our rotation. I don't like the idea of giving up both Garland and Konerko unless we get a ton of $$$ from the Yanks to sign someone like Wilson Alvarez. Take a look at Konerko's splits from this past season. He hit only .239 on the road. :o:

Buehrle
Garcia
Vazquez
Contreras
Alvarez

:gulp:

EDIT: You also say that you think Garland "can" win 15 games. How many games do you think Vazquez could win with the Sox? He won 16 games with the Expos in 2001, who only won 68 games.
Much agreed. In fact, the way things are looking, I'd say it's fairly likely that the trade goes down and we get Vasquez for PK and JG. This is a good IF, AND ONLY IF we get cash AND we spend it on a quality #4 or #5.

IMO, Vasquez + quality end of rotation arm > PK+JG.

The reason JG wins 12 games every year is b/c our offense won him those games. And we have proven that our offense cannot even win us a division title. Therefore, the organization is using their "limited resources" to focus on pitching. PK is the best bargaining chip we have to get pitching. He had a great overall year last year, but sucked on the road. As someone said before, if he has another great year, he is out of our price range. If he sucks, we lost a chance to get something for him.

Getting Vasquez and a #4 or #5 guy gives us a top 3 rotation in the AL that is also locked up for 2006.

Nick@Nite
12-10-2004, 05:50 PM
I've heard Kenny reference the "big board" many times.I didn't know General Buck Turgidson was the Sox GM. :?:

http://a1055.g.akamai.net/f/1055/1400/5h/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8450000/8459232.jpg (http://a1055.g.akamai.net/f/1055/1400/5h/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8450000/8459322.jpg)
"or how I learned to stop worrying and love .500 baseball"

Lip Man 1
12-10-2004, 07:39 PM
Folks:

Keep in mind one other important thing. The CBA expires after the 2006 season. Many in the MLBPA feel they gave far to much in 2002 to the owners because of the bad publicity that resulted from the 1994 situation. In other words they did it to keep the fans happy.

They may not in as giving a mood this time considering revenue sharing has not slowed down the major market / big spending teams, the fact that certain small market clubs have been pocketing revenue sharing money and slashing payroll and what looks like a major upgrade in the drug testing policy.

They may feel to time for the owners to give up things.

No one knows what market situation, tax, revenue sharing or salary cap / floor policies may be in vogue when the 2007 starts.

And it is a fact the Sox have very little money tied up after the 2006 season. Coincidence...I don't know.

Just something to remember with Williams' comments.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
12-10-2004, 07:47 PM
Folks:

Keep in mind one other important thing. The CBA expires after the 2006 season. Many in the MLBPA feel they gave far to much in 2002 to the owners because of the bad publicity that resulted from the 1994 situation. In other words they did it to keep the fans happy.

They may not in as giving a mood this time considering revenue sharing has not slowed down the major market / big spending teams, the fact that certain small market clubs have been pocketing revenue sharing money and slashing payroll and what looks like a major upgrade in the drug testing policy.

They may feel to time for the owners to give up things.

No one knows what market situation, tax, revenue sharing or salary cap / floor policies may be in vogue when the 2007 starts.

And it is a fact the Sox have very little money tied up after the 2006 season. Coincidence...I don't know.

Just something to remember with Williams' comments.

LipI would call it coincidence for one simple reason. Only the very elite players justify more than a 3 year deal. 2006 is two years away.

MRKARNO
12-10-2004, 10:06 PM
Konerko and Garland combined should have more value than Vazquez. I would think that Konerko alone has as much value as Vazquez, but probably more because his contract expires after 2005.

I was thinking, the Yanks need a first basemen badly and they're considering....Tino Martinez. They might want to do PK for Vazquez straight up with a little money our way regardless of the RJ situation. I would look for this....

Jabroni
12-10-2004, 10:19 PM
Konerko and Garland combined should have more value than Vazquez. I would think that Konerko alone has as much value as Vazquez, but probably more because his contract expires after 2005.

I was thinking, the Yanks need a first basemen badly and they're considering....Tino Martinez. They might want to do PK for Vazquez straight up with a little money our way regardless of the RJ situation. I would look for this....Good point. Vazquez seems to have fallen out of favor with the Yankees after his poor playoff performances. If the Yankees trade Vazquez, they will still have Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown, and they are expected to re-sign Orlando Hernandez and sign Jaret Wright. They also want Carl Pavano. They need a first baseman and Konerko would be a good fit for them. Konerko would be great insurance incase Giambi misses a part of next season with his roid-induced illness. :tongue:

White Sox get:
Javier Vazquez + cash

Yankees get:
Paul Konerko

That would be ideal but who knows what will happen... :?:

flo-B-flo
12-10-2004, 10:20 PM
I love Hot Stove Baseball.



https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bschalle/www/KWstealth.jpg So do I. Where DO you all get such great pictures? Awesome

Rocklive99
12-10-2004, 10:35 PM
You are all crazy, who cares if he was good in the 1st half, there is something that is obviously wrong with his mechanics or in his head, and what makes you think the White Sox would be able to fix it? Do you think the Yankees just stood by doing nothing while this kid has had an ERA around the 6s late in the season and in the 9s in the playoffs.

PK was one of the best hitters in the AL last year, and trading Garland straight up would just be garbage for garbage and would still leave you with a hole. The only way it might look good would be if you signed someone like Clement with the money saved like was mentioned above, but I don't know the specifics on money and making a trade like that on a hope that a FA will sign with you is too risky IMO

Jabroni
12-10-2004, 10:45 PM
You are all crazy, who cares if he was good in the 1st half, there is something that is obviously wrong with his mechanics or in his head, and what makes you think the White Sox would be able to fix it? Do you think the Yankees just stood by doing nothing while this kid has had an ERA around the 6s late in the season and in the 9s in the playoffs.

PK was one of the best hitters in the AL last year, and trading Garland straight up would just be garbage for garbage and would still leave you with a hole. The only way it might look good would be if you signed someone like Clement with the money saved like was mentioned above, but I don't know the specifics on money and making a trade like that on a hope that a FA will sign with you is too risky IMOMel Stottlemyre is not a good pitching coach. He didn't even know that Jose Contreras was tipping his pitching last season.

MRKARNO
12-10-2004, 10:49 PM
You are all crazy, who cares if he was good in the 1st half, there is something that is obviously wrong with his mechanics or in his head, and what makes you think the White Sox would be able to fix it? Do you think the Yankees just stood by doing nothing while this kid has had an ERA around the 6s late in the season and in the 9s in the playoffs.
If we were talking about a pitcher who has had one good half in his career and not been very good overall, I would understand this arguement, but we're talking about a pitcher that was one of the best in baseball from 2001 to June 2004. Do I think the Yankees stood around and did nothing? Yes I do! Mel Stottlemyer seems to be incompetant to have had both Brown and Vazquez tank under his watch. Vazquez is an amazing pitcher and I think an average pitching coach could set him back on the right track (and I think Cooper's a little better than average). You can't just set aside 3.5 years of greatness to look at .5 of a year to criticize a pitcher.


PK was one of the best hitters in the AL last year, and trading Garland straight up would just be garbage for garbage and would still leave you with a hole. The only way it might look good would be if you signed someone like Clement with the money saved like was mentioned above, but I don't know the specifics on money and making a trade like that on a hope that a FA will sign with you is too risky IMO
Trading Garland straight up would be a significant upgrade, but yes we'd still have a major hole and this would not be a money-saving hole so we wouldnt have 8-9 to sign Clement. Konerko worries me because he was clearly the one who benefitted from the HR surge at the Cell this year. His road numbers are god-awful (.239 AVG .301 OBP 12 HR vs. .317 AVG .414 OBP and 29 HRs at home. That's almost 3 times as many HRs at home!) If we do this trade, we will come out on top because I dont know that he can hit at any other park in the majors. This is teh only reason i might include both players.

MRKARNO
12-10-2004, 10:52 PM
Mel Stottlemyre is not a good pitching coach. He didn't even know that Jose Contreras was tipping his pitching last season. I forgot about that. Almost every hitter in the league knew about it before he did!

Jabroni
12-10-2004, 10:54 PM
The fact is that Konerko for Vazquez would be a great trade, especially if the Yankees threw in some cash. Konerko AND Garland for Vazquez would be a bad trade because it would still leave us with no 5th starter.

SpartanSoxFan
12-10-2004, 11:03 PM
The fact is that Konerko for Vazquez would be a great trade, especially if the Yankees threw in some cash. Konerko AND Garland for Vazquez would be a bad trade because it would still leave us with no 5th starter.
Sorry to get off track here, but I'm really diggin' your sig right now! :cool:

Jabroni
12-10-2004, 11:09 PM
Sorry to get off track here, but I'm really diggin' your sig right now! :cool:Thanks! :wink:

nitetrain8601
12-10-2004, 11:17 PM
I also think that a PK for Vazquez straight up would work. Too many people are looking at .5 of a season instead of the past 4 years. These are the same people bitching about Garland pitching, but bitching about him being traded and claiming to be knowledgeable about baseball.

Lip Man 1
12-11-2004, 02:06 PM
Jabroni:

History lesson. Cito Gaston said a few years after the 1993 ALCS that the Jays hitters could read McDowell and Fernandez because they were tipping their pitches. Those two lost all four post season games. Coincidence?

None of the Sox staff picked up on it either.

Sometimes it's not as easy as you think when you are so close to a particular subject. It's called seeing the forest from the trees.

If Stottlemyre (who was a very good pitcher in the 60's / 70's) was that bad, Steinbrenner would have canned him years ago like he has done to numerous managers and hitting coaches.

Lip

Paulwny
12-11-2004, 02:37 PM
Mel Stottlemyre is not a good pitching coach. He didn't even know that Jose Contreras was tipping his pitching last season.

Tipping his pitches is still a rumor. Contreras has long large fingers, in order to throw the splitter he has to push his pitching hand into the ball/glove. Many felt he was tipping his splitter because of this. Stottlemeyer had him do this for every pitch and then change the grip for a different pitch from there., so as to not tip off the splitter. Contreras is another guy who couldn't pitch for the yankmees. The problems are in his head.

munchman33
12-11-2004, 08:00 PM
Well, Vasquez's problems are obvious. His delivery is off. That can be fixed. If it's a physical problem, then we'll know when we bring him in for a physical.

Tragg
12-11-2004, 09:08 PM
It was actually like this:

RJ to the Yankees...Vasquez to the Sox...Konerko and Garland to the D-Backs.
Sooooo, why do we need the Yankees? Why not take RJ instead of Vasquez?

Whitesoxtom
12-11-2004, 09:12 PM
Sooooo, why do we need the Yankees? Why not take RJ instead of Vasquez?
Because RJ won't play here.

soltrain21
12-11-2004, 09:12 PM
Sooooo, why do we need the Yankees? Why not take RJ instead of Vasquez?

RJ doesn't want to play for us.

Tragg
12-11-2004, 09:19 PM
RJ doesn't want to play for us.I meant it as an illustration of how that deal isn't a good one for us: no way is Vasquez the equal of Johnson, yet in that deal (irrespective of Johnson's refusal to play for us ), they are equals. SOOO, the yanks ought to either kick something back to us, or they kick the extra player to Arizona and we keep Garland (which we should as it would give us 5 starters; and people can say what they want, but Garland will be an above average 5th starter in MLB).

Further, if we are trying to win this thing, is it really in our interests to assist the Yankees in getting Randy Johnson?