PDA

View Full Version : Why Hudson, Mulder, or Vazquez aren't with the Sox.


santo=dorf
01-02-2005, 10:27 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-050101rogers,1,4208517,print.column?coll=cs-home-utility

Javier Vazquez is no dummy. According to research done by the White Sox, Vazquez wants to stay in the NL once he officially becomes property of the Diamondbacks. So don't look for GM Ken Williams to get in line with the teams hoping Arizona will trade him.

Williams would have loved to have landed one of the two aces Oakland dealt last month, Thornwood High's Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson. The price for neither struck him as exorbitant.

"The first one surprised me," Williams said. "The second one shocked me."

Atlanta sent Oakland left-hander Dan Meyer (9-3, 146 strikeouts, 37 walks in 126 innings between Double A and Triple A), right-hander Juan Cruz and outfielder Charles Thomas for Hudson. St. Louis got Mulder for right-handers Dan Haren and Kiko Calero and catching prospect Daric Barton.

Athletics GM Billy Beane projects Meyer and Haren into a rebuilt rotation with Barry Zito, Rich Harden and Joe Blanton. The Sox did not have a single young, inexpensive starter who interested Beane.

"I doubt Billy has gotten more phone calls about his Big Three [starters] from anyone else than me over the last 2 years," Williams said. "Our dialogue is ongoing today. But he decided he wanted a major-league-ready, zero-to-three [years' experience] starter, and that guy had to be a [potential] front-of-the-rotation guy. He looked at us and didn't see a fit."

Beane didn't want Jon Garland and wasn't willing to take a gamble on Brandon McCarthy, who is 30-13 as a pro and led the minors with 202 strikeouts last season but hasn't pitched above Double A.

I hope McCarthy sets the world on fire while the FOBB come up with excuses why Beane passed over him. :cool:

Brian26
01-02-2005, 10:49 PM
I hope McCarthy sets the world on fire while the FOBB come up with excuses why Beane passed over him. :cool:
I believe this was covered in a thread earlier today, but here's the quick reasoning. Beane was looking for a SP who would probably be read for the big club in '05. McCarthy may or may not set the world on fire, but either way he wasn't going to be ready to pitch in '05. Maybe '06, but not '05. There were a lot of teams after Hudson and Mulder, and Beane went with the team that could supply him the quickest mlb-ready replacements. As for passing over Garland, who in their right-mind could fault Beane based on Garland's performance over the past 4 yrs?

konerko1413
01-02-2005, 11:35 PM
brian26- awesome sig

Mohoney
01-03-2005, 12:20 AM
As for passing over Garland, who in their right-mind could fault Beane based on Garland's performance over the past 4 yrs?
Great point. I can't blame Beane one bit if he sees more upside in Haren or Meyer than Garland.

Garland has already made 127 starts at the big league level, and for some people that is a more than adequate sample size to judge on.

The fact is that Garland doesn't strike people out, and shows no signs of ever being a dominant pitcher. He may show signs of being effective (and even that is debatable), but he's not showing anything right now that should make GMs in this league leap at the chance to acquire him.

As for McCarthy, the upside is huge. A 60/3 K/BB ratio, even if it is in A ball, is enough to raise many eyebrows. But the fact of the matter is that he's definitely not going to be ready to contribute at the major league level in '05. Whether Blanton, Haren, or Meyer are ready is definitely a matter of debate, but McCarthy will definitely need at least another year in the minors, and Oakland needed to fill the rotation spot now. They couldn't afford to wait for McCarthy.

California Sox
01-03-2005, 12:27 AM
Of course the fact that KW keeps offering every decent prospect we have in trade makes me want to puke. Is anyone untouchable???

Mohoney
01-03-2005, 01:13 AM
Of course the fact that KW keeps offering every decent prospect we have in trade makes me want to puke. Is anyone untouchable???
For a Mulder or a Hudson that is immediately signed to an extension, no way is ANY farmhand untouchable. To add a guy of that ilk to Freddy and Buehrle, not to mention pushing El Duque to #4, I would give up ANY minor league talent that I had to in an effort to minimize what I have to give from my major league club.

Sure, I would hate to see a McCarthy or Sweeney go. But to get 4 or 5 years of service from a Hudson or Mulder, it's worth it.

ewokpelts
01-03-2005, 01:20 AM
Of course the fact that KW keeps offering every decent prospect we have in trade makes me want to puke. Is anyone untouchable???:ralomar:

FarWestChicago
01-03-2005, 03:00 AM
Of course the fact that KW keeps offering every decent prospect we have in trade makes me want to puke. Is anyone untouchable???What the hell are you talking about? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

eastchicagosoxfan
01-03-2005, 07:27 AM
We Sox fans throw Garland into a variety of trade scenarios, all of them are biased towards us. Every trade thread involves him, and in return the Sox get a much better pitcher. The simple fact is that Oakland wanted a proven starter, capable of leading a staff, and some hot prospects, who were labeled " can't miss " at one time. So, in the hypothetical spirit, five(?) years ago, the Sox send Matt Karchner to the Cubs for John Garland, and the Sox package Garland and James Baldwin to the A's for Barry Zito.

fquaye149
01-03-2005, 09:45 AM
We Sox fans throw Garland into a variety of trade scenarios, all of them are biased towards us. Every trade thread involves him, and in return the Sox get a much better pitcher. The simple fact is that Oakland wanted a proven starter, capable of leading a staff, and some hot prospects, who were labeled " can't miss " at one time. So, in the hypothetical spirit, five(?) years ago, the Sox send Matt Karchner to the Cubs for John Garland, and the Sox package Garland and James Baldwin to the A's for Barry Zito.
i'm very confused by this post

Flight #24
01-03-2005, 10:50 AM
Of course the fact that KW keeps offering every decent prospect we have in trade makes me want to puke. Is anyone untouchable???
Let's see - hotshot prospect who's still 1-2 years away at least and may not pan out (Anderson/Sweeney/BMac)......named for either the best pitcher in baseball (Randy J), or a young stud starter (Mulder/Hudson). All guys who have proven that they're among the top 10-20 players in all of baseball.

I suppose we should be trying to get those guys for some combination of Borchard, Diaz, Munoz? Or maybe we just shouldn't discuss trading for top players?

gosox41
01-03-2005, 11:35 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-050101rogers,1,4208517,print.column?coll=cs-home-utility


I hope McCarthy sets the world on fire while the FOBB come up with excuses why Beane passed over him. :cool:

Not to get on you too much, but read what Beane wanted out of the trade. He wanted a major league ready pitcher with 0-3 years experience. Do you want B-Mac in the rotation in April of '05? There is no excuse as to why Beane passed over him. There's an obvious reason. It says so in the article.



Bob

Flight #24
01-03-2005, 11:40 AM
Not to get on you too much, but read what Beane wanted out of the trade. He wanted a major league ready pitcher with 0-3 years experience. Do you want B-Mac in the rotation in April of '05? There is no excuse as to why Beane passed over him. There's an obvious reason. It says so in the article.



Bob
Just IMO, but the question to me would be: Do you think BMac's a better long term bet, even though he'll be ready in 06 rather than 05? If so, then it's a mistake to choose Haren (or whoever) over him. The A's are not retooling to win in 2005, so IMO you take the guy you think has the best shot to be great long term.

If Beane thinks that's Haren & co, fine. If it turns out that BMac is better, then he made a mistake in how he structured his evaluation criteria.

gosox41
01-03-2005, 11:49 AM
Just IMO, but the question to me would be: Do you think BMac's a better long term bet, even though he'll be ready in 06 rather than 05? If so, then it's a mistake to choose Haren (or whoever) over him. The A's are not retooling to win in 2005, so IMO you take the guy you think has the best shot to be great long term.

If Beane thinks that's Haren & co, fine. If it turns out that BMac is better, then he made a mistake in how he structured his evaluation criteria.
I agree. But just for the record for those who are 100% BB (not you, I'm just making a general comment) is that BB never said that. I know people that are anti-BB will say anything to defame the guy, but Beane never said any such thing.

As for what you said I think Beane wanted immediate help for a couple of reasons that re pure speculation on my part:

1. So these young players that have potential can develop on a faster time frame when he expects then team to be good in 2006. This can be a big year for Haren to get accustomed to the majors, AL, etc. And maybe the fact that he has good potential and is closer to major league ready fits in with Beane's plan of having a contender in '06.

2. Beane didn't want to send a messaget to the fans that he was throwing in the towel in '05 . He just traded his 2 best pitchers. He probably needed something to show for it right away.

Reminds me of how Schu made the White Flag trade but wouldn't deal with an AL team. Also reminds me how he threw Caruso out there in 1998 before he was ready.


But if I were GM I'd take the player with the higher ceiling. Don't know if it's B-Mac or Haren. B-Mac has been pretty impressive in his minor league career, but Haren was good to.



Bob

beck72
01-03-2005, 11:58 AM
Just IMO, but the question to me would be: Do you think BMac's a better long term bet, even though he'll be ready in 06 rather than 05? If so, then it's a mistake to choose Haren (or whoever) over him. The A's are not retooling to win in 2005, so IMO you take the guy you think has the best shot to be great long term.

If Beane thinks that's Haren & co, fine. If it turns out that BMac is better, then he made a mistake in how he structured his evaluation criteria.
I think the A's will contend in 2005, and got players who could help this yr and the next few. With the bullpen guys they've added in Calero and Cruz, young arms like Street, and with Dotel around the whole yr, that's one of the better pens in the league. Their offense is solid, and should improve, with Crosby in his 2nd yr, Kendall, Kotsay, Chavez, etc.

The biggest question is their SP. If they get decent yrs from them, they should be fighting w/ Ana. for 1st the entire yr

Flight #24
01-03-2005, 12:41 PM
I think the A's will contend in 2005, and got players who could help this yr and the next few. With the bullpen guys they've added in Calero and Cruz, young arms like Street, and with Dotel around the whole yr, that's one of the better pens in the league. Their offense is solid, and should improve, with Crosby in his 2nd yr, Kendall, Kotsay, Chavez, etc.

The biggest question is their SP. If they get decent yrs from them, they should be fighting w/ Ana. for 1st the entire yr
Their O will be about equal to last year. Miller was solid offensively, and while Kendall's obviously an upgrade, I think expecting Swisher (or whoever) to come up and immediately best Dye's production is unrealistic. Their pitching, on the other hand will be a lot worse. Swapping Mulder, Hudson, & Redman for Blanton, Haren, & Meyer is a HUGE downgrade in 2005.

Meanwhile, Anaheim is getting better. Their O was better than Oakland's, and they added Finley, Cabrera, & Kendry Morales (the loss of Glaus and his 200ABs in 2004 isn't that big). Their starting rotation is a lot more proven & reliable, albiet without the upside in the 3-5 slots that Oakland has. They have a much better closer as well. So the only area where Oakland might have an advantage in 2005 is in middle relief, and that's debatable.

It's unrealistic for Beane to expect to contend for the division this year. If he passed up a better long-term pitcher in BMac to try and contend in '05, then he's being foolish & would have been better off keeping one of Hudson/Mulder. If he thinks Haren/Meyer are better long-term prospects than BMac, then whether he's right or wrong will be seen in a couple of years.

eriqjaffe
01-03-2005, 01:03 PM
Of course the fact that KW keeps offering every decent prospect we have in trade makes me want to puke. Is anyone untouchable???http://www.cardtarget.com/card_images/760front.gif

gosox41
01-03-2005, 01:08 PM
Their O will be about equal to last year. Miller was solid offensively, and while Kendall's obviously an upgrade, I think expecting Swisher (or whoever) to come up and immediately best Dye's production is unrealistic. Their pitching, on the other hand will be a lot worse. Swapping Mulder, Hudson, & Redman for Blanton, Haren, & Meyer is a HUGE downgrade in 2005.

Meanwhile, Anaheim is getting better. Their O was better than Oakland's, and they added Finley, Cabrera, & Kendry Morales (the loss of Glaus and his 200ABs in 2004 isn't that big). Their starting rotation is a lot more proven & reliable, albiet without the upside in the 3-5 slots that Oakland has. They have a much better closer as well. So the only area where Oakland might have an advantage in 2005 is in middle relief, and that's debatable.

It's unrealistic for Beane to expect to contend for the division this year. If he passed up a better long-term pitcher in BMac to try and contend in '05, then he's being foolish & would have been better off keeping one of Hudson/Mulder. If he thinks Haren/Meyer are better long-term prospects than BMac, then whether he's right or wrong will be seen in a couple of years.
It most likely will be a down year in 2005 for the A's. But one other thing to keep in mind is that when Mulder and Hudson were traded, Beane didn't get just Haren or Myer.

So maybe Beane though the package of players he received for Mulder and Hudson was greater then what the Sox would or could offer. It doesn't mean that B-Mac won't be better then Haren or Myer, but overall Beane may have liked the overall package the Cards and Braves offered.


Bob

Flight #24
01-03-2005, 01:12 PM
It most likely will be a down year in 2005 for the A's. But one other thing to keep in mind is that when Mulder and Hudson were traded, Beane didn't get just Haren or Myer.

So maybe Beane though the package of players he received for Mulder and Hudson was greater then what the Sox would or could offer. It doesn't mean that B-Mac won't be better then Haren or Myer, but overall Beane may have liked the overall package the Cards and Braves offered.


Bob
True, but per the article, the primary issue wasn't the other guys involved, it was the starting point of a pitcher ready for 2005.

I'd guess that for Mulder/Huddy, Beane could have gotten BMac+Andersen/Sweeney and more. It sounded like KW's offer never got off the ground because of the young pitcher involved.

fquaye149
01-03-2005, 01:37 PM
http://www.cardtarget.com/card_images/760front.gif
untouchable in the sense of the caste system

santo=dorf
01-03-2005, 01:46 PM
Not to get on you too much, but read what Beane wanted out of the trade. He wanted a major league ready pitcher with 0-3 years experience. Do you want B-Mac in the rotation in April of '05? There is no excuse as to why Beane passed over him. There's an obvious reason. It says so in the article.



Bob
Oh I know what you're saying, but I should have made it more clear that I posted this to show all of the arm-chair GM's out there who were screaming when Hudson and Mulder were traded "WE SHOULD'VE GIVEN THEM MCCARTHY AND JON GARLAND!!" or "WE COULD'VE BEAT THAT OFFER, WHERE WAS KW?"

Well KW was interested in both of them, but Beane wasn't interested in either Garland or McCarthy.

beck72
01-03-2005, 02:18 PM
It's unrealistic for Beane to expect to contend for the division this year. If he passed up a better long-term pitcher in BMac to try and contend in '05, then he's being foolish & would have been better off keeping one of Hudson/Mulder. If he thinks Haren/Meyer are better long-term prospects than BMac, then whether he's right or wrong will be seen in a couple of years.Beane must think he can contend in 2005, even w/o Mulder and Hudson. That or he could have waited to trade Mulder after 2005. Whether you or I believe it, my guess is Beane thinks the A's team he's buliding for 2005 can contend. While he's also building for the future, he also wants to win now. Whether it's ego talking or not, the A's aren't that bad of a team now.

gosox41
01-03-2005, 03:16 PM
Oh I know what you're saying, but I should have made it more clear that I posted this to show all of the arm-chair GM's out there who were screaming when Hudson and Mulder were traded "WE SHOULD'VE GIVEN THEM MCCARTHY AND JON GARLAND!!" or "WE COULD'VE BEAT THAT OFFER, WHERE WAS KW?"

Well KW was interested in both of them, but Beane wasn't interested in either Garland or McCarthy.
Gotcha. We'll see what happens with B-Mac. Maybe the Sox are destined to develop a really good starting pitcher every 5 years or so and Mc carthy will be like Buehrle. Hopefully. Because I'm sick of the alternatives that Sox pitching prospects have turned out to be.


Bob

tstrike2000
01-03-2005, 03:35 PM
Gotcha. We'll see what happens with B-Mac. Maybe the Sox are destined to develop a really good starting pitcher every 5 years or so and Mc carthy will be like Buehrle. Hopefully. Because I'm sick of the alternatives that Sox pitching prospects have turned out to be.


Bob
Who hasn't been sick?

Jerome
01-03-2005, 04:11 PM
Who hasn't been sick?

What are you talking about?!

Kip Wells
Jon Garland
Jon Rausch
Josh Fogg
Diaz

Our young arms are some of the best pitchers in the game!

nodiggity59
01-03-2005, 04:13 PM
I think the As will be .500 next year. However, I don't think this will be a special accomplishment or any kind of "achievement".

Chisox003
01-03-2005, 04:52 PM
What are you talking about?!

Kip Wells
Jon Garland
Jon Rausch
Josh Fogg
Diaz

Our young arms are some of the best pitchers in the game!
You're forgetting Aaron Myette!!

Hangar18
01-03-2005, 05:29 PM
Why arent these Fellows with the SOX? BLAME HIM :reinsy

SuperSteve
01-03-2005, 07:16 PM
i'm very confused by this post I am not. I agree with it. So many proposed deals are terrible for the other team, and people bash KW for not pulling the trigger on it. I don't want Vasquez anyways, and esecially for what was on Rotoworld a few weeks ago (Konerko and Garland for Vasquez).

People don't like the fact that some players don't want to come here. Well, that's all fine and good. But, so many more teams have the same problem we do. We're in the middle of MLB teamwise, both pretisge and salary. Many teams have to overpay even more than we do to sign certain FAs.

I do not think there is too many players even worth $10 million, and I want no part in bidding wars with the Yankees. Why would we want Vasquez for his cost? Mulder and Hudson I can see, but who says Hudson would sign with us after this season? Two years of Mulder is worth it IMHO, but Hudson is questionable and Vasquez would not upgrade this team IMHO, he would take away from the overall squad.

SuperSteve
01-03-2005, 07:24 PM
I think the A's will contend in 2005, and got players who could help this yr and the next few. With the bullpen guys they've added in Calero and Cruz, young arms like Street, and with Dotel around the whole yr, that's one of the better pens in the league. Their offense is solid, and should improve, with Crosby in his 2nd yr, Kendall, Kotsay, Chavez, etc.

The biggest question is their SP. If they get decent yrs from them, they should be fighting w/ Ana. for 1st the entire yr I still think they're pen is worse than their SP. Harden and Blanton have good stuff, and you can never rule out Barry Zito. I am not sure what to expect out of Haren, but I think he will be okay. Dotel is as scary a closer as Billy Koch IMHO. An awesome setup man who just is not a closer, a la LaTroy Hawkins.

johnny_mostil
01-03-2005, 08:01 PM
I hope McCarthy sets the world on fire while the FOBB come up with excuses why Beane passed over him. :cool:
God heavens. We FOBBs think he's clever, not God.

fquaye149
01-04-2005, 01:28 PM
God heavens. We FOBBs think he's clever, not God.
you are obviously speaking for yourself.

Ask DaDawg if beane has ever made a mistake and the answer will likely rhyme with the first name of a fake hip having two sport sox star from the early 90's