PDA

View Full Version : Gammons says sox interested in Weaver


Iguana775
07-19-2005, 07:47 AM
On sport center this morning said the Dodgers would trade Weaver but would have to take on a contract like Lowe or Perez.

Getting Lowe and Weaver? interesting....

samram
07-19-2005, 07:52 AM
On sport center this morning said the Dodgers would trade Weaver but would have to take on a contract like Lowe or Perez.

Getting Lowe and Weaver? interesting....

That's a lot of salary to take on. By the way, I think we can all agree that DePodesta deserves the award for worst collection of off-season moves, with Cashman (well, Steinbrenner) in second.

BeviBall!
07-19-2005, 08:07 AM
That's not true... he said the Sox were only interested in Weaver, and that if any team was interested in Perez and Lowe, they would deal them too because they're trying to dump those salaries.

Iguana775
07-19-2005, 08:16 AM
That's not true... he said the Sox were only interested in Weaver, and that if any team was interested in Perez and Lowe, they would deal them too because they're trying to dump those salaries.

that's what i said.

daveeym
07-19-2005, 08:26 AM
that's what i said. Not so much. Your post reads that any team that wants Weaver is going to have to take one of the others as well.

SoXPriDe33
07-19-2005, 08:34 AM
I don't think that would be a bad trade, it would have to depend on what we give up because Weaver moving into The Cell could be a problem with his ERA. I think that if the Sox have the money they should atleast try to get one of them.

balke
07-19-2005, 08:48 AM
Weaver = Contreras with less potential. Actually, he's even got a higher ERA this season than Contreras, in the NL. I really don't think El Duque looked bad last night. The first pitch of the game was a rising fastball that the leadoff man was ready for, and he was missing the outside of the plate every now and then, but he's above a lot of the pitchers I've heard rumored as his replacement. Plus, he likes to throw strikes, which is a big plus.

Gammons said we want Schmidt first, and so do the Nationals. Giants need Schmidt to rebuild though, so they are reluctant to make a trade. What might not be bad is if Gammons is wrong, and the Sox are looking at Penny from the Dodgers, or he did say Perez. I don't know.

Iguana775
07-19-2005, 09:26 AM
Not so much. Your post reads that any team that wants Weaver is going to have to take one of the others as well.

And that's what Gammons said.

I said that the Sox were interested in Weaver. And I also said that Gammons said that whoever takes Weaver may have to take Perez or Lowe.


Like i said, That's what i said.

1917
07-19-2005, 09:37 AM
Perez has been on KW radar for years...lefty...signed a 3 year deal for like 27-30 mil I think

Jerko
07-19-2005, 09:57 AM
On sport center this morning said the Dodgers would trade Weaver but would have to take on a contract like Lowe or Perez.

Getting Lowe and Weaver? interesting....


Iguana, quit defending yourself. The above is what you said, and it's worded so badly it's causing people to "correct" you. The report I saw said the Sox were interested in Weaver, but if ANY OTHER team wanted Lowe or Perez, AND would take on their salaries, the Dodgers would trade them too. That line above is so screwed up it doesn't make any sense. Look at that line. It actually says the Dodgers would trade Weaver AND take on Lowe and Perez' contracts.

daveeym
07-19-2005, 10:35 AM
And that's what Gammons said.

I said that the Sox were interested in Weaver. And I also said that Gammons said that whoever takes Weaver may have to take Perez or Lowe.


Like i said, That's what i said. Right, but BeviBall said you were wrong or he heard a different report that Perez and Lowe are also available seperately from Weaver. Which you also responded to with "that's what I said".

Mr.ChiSox
07-19-2005, 11:02 AM
YA well anything that comes from Gammons is a load of molasses.

Irishsox1
07-19-2005, 11:05 AM
NO JEFF WEAVER!!!

That guys is a total jerk off. You talk about club house chemistry being important, adding Jeff Weaver would destroy that is a second.

gr8mexico
07-19-2005, 11:28 AM
If the Sox can get Odalis Perez at a cheap price with out having to give up a whole lot that would be great.The guy is solid this is the same guy that alot of sox fans wanted to trade for and wanted to give up Paul Konerko for a couple of years ago.Let's try to send them Borchard and someone else for Perez.Then the Sox could ship out Contreras to another team looking for pitching.

balke
07-19-2005, 11:34 AM
If Contreras can give another solid outing in a row, he shouldn't go anywhere. He's been solid as of late. I don't mind a guy having a bad ERA if it comes from 2-3 games he got shelled. He's at 3.99 right now, hopefully it goes down even further tonight.

bumptious96
07-19-2005, 11:36 AM
No Weaver, No Perez, No Lowe. Give me Billy Wagner!

BeviBall!
07-19-2005, 11:53 AM
Right, but BeviBall said you were wrong or he heard a different report that Perez and Lowe are also available seperately from Weaver. Which you also responded to with "that's what I said".

Exactly... there is no package between Weaver and the others. Gammons said that the Dodgers would deal Perez or Lowe if someone wants that salary.

Iguana775
07-19-2005, 11:58 AM
Iguana, quit defending yourself. The above is what you said, and it's worded so badly it's causing people to "correct" you. The report I saw said the Sox were interested in Weaver, but if ANY OTHER team wanted Lowe or Perez, AND would take on their salaries, the Dodgers would trade them too. That line above is so screwed up it doesn't make any sense. Look at that line. It actually says the Dodgers would trade Weaver AND take on Lowe and Perez' contracts.

Excuse me?? I guess that OR in the middle of Perez and Lowe messed you up?

Ok, i'll break it down for you.


On sport center this morning said the Dodgers would trade Weaver


do you get that part?? When you include the subject, this means the Sox are interested in trading for Weaver and the Dodgers could trade him.

but would have to take on a contract like Lowe or Perez.

How bout this? This suggest that if someone wants to trade for Weaver, they would have to take one of the contracts of Lowe or Perez.

Get it yet or do i have to draw a picture?

The only thing that could have made that statement confusing was I forgot to out and IT after the but.

whatever...

TheOldRoman
07-19-2005, 12:01 PM
Excuse me?? I guess that OR in the middle of Perez and Lowe messed you up?

Ok, i'll break it down for you.

[/i]

do you get that part?? When you include the subject, this means the Sox are interested in trading for Weaver and the Dodgers could trade him.



How bout this? This suggest that if someone wants to trade for Weaver, they would have to take one of the contracts of Lowe or Perez.

Get it yet or do i have to draw a picture?

The only thing that could have made that statement confusing was I forgot to out and IT after the but.

whatever...
W... R... O... N... G
He didn't say that. He said they would trade Weaver, and the Sox are interested (which is BS) PERIOD.
The Dodgers also want to trade Perez and Lowe, but any team taking them would have to eat their salaries PERIOD.

He didn't say that inorder to get Weaver, a team would have to take Lowe and or Perez.

GAsoxfan
07-19-2005, 12:03 PM
Gammons didn't say a team would have to take Lowe or Perez in a Weaver deal. Gammons said the Dodgers would trade Weaver (without any mention of Lowe or Perez). Therefore, if a team wanted Weaver, they could get him without having to take Lowe or Perez.

Then, Gammons said if a team was interested in taking the salary of Lowe or Perez, the Dodgers would trade them as well.

Basically, Gammons said the Dodgers are willing to trade Weaver, Lowe, or Perez. Two don't necessarily have to go in the same deal.

BNLSox
07-19-2005, 12:16 PM
All the bickering made that a really unpleasant read. Chill out folks.

Flight #24
07-19-2005, 12:17 PM
Gammons didn't say a team would have to take Lowe or Perez in a Weaver deal. Gammons said the Dodgers would trade Weaver (without any mention of Lowe or Perez). Therefore, if a team wanted Weaver, they could get him without having to take Lowe or Perez.

Then, Gammons said if a team was interested in taking the salary of Lowe or Perez, the Dodgers would trade them as well.

Basically, Gammons said the Dodgers are willing to trade Weaver, Lowe, or Perez. Two don't necessarily have to go in the same deal.

Weaver ought to come cheap. He's decent, but not great, and has a history of inconsistency. And he's a rental, and costs the prorated portion of $9.5mil this year.

In some sense, he's the perfect pickup for the Sox - adds salary for this year only, shouldn't cost too much, and can provide some solid insurance as a #5 starter. Questions exist on his attitude and whether he can pitch effectively out of the pen until/unless needed as a starter, but if those are resolved, I could see him as a decent addition. If he can pitch decently out of the 'pen, he could also enable you to deal Vizcaino if he'll get you an upgraded SP (unlikely).

cheeses_h_rice
07-19-2005, 12:21 PM
No Jeff Weaver, please.

I beg of you.

rowand33
07-19-2005, 12:34 PM
Excuse me?? I guess that OR in the middle of Perez and Lowe messed you up?

Ok, i'll break it down for you.

[/i]

do you get that part?? When you include the subject, this means the Sox are interested in trading for Weaver and the Dodgers could trade him.



How bout this? This suggest that if someone wants to trade for Weaver, they would have to take one of the contracts of Lowe or Perez.

Get it yet or do i have to draw a picture?

The only thing that could have made that statement confusing was I forgot to out and IT after the but.

whatever...

quit being such an ass. you're wrong.

This is what Gammons said:

Perez, Lowe, and Weaver are available. The White Sox and Nationals are intereted.

This is what you said: The Sox are interested in Weaver, but Gammons says they'd have to take on the contract of Lowe or Perez to get Weaver.

Your statement is incorrect. Quit talking down to people.

As tot he actual topic:

Weaver-no (he's just not very good...)
Lowe-no (he'd get murdered in the Cell)
Perez-maybe. great years in 02 and 04. decent in 03. ****ty this year, but career stats single that their should be some sort of turn a round. an underrated pitcher. wouldn't mind having him, especially if the dodgers are giving him away.

Jerko
07-19-2005, 12:34 PM
Iguana, you got it wrong. No need to talk down to me over it. You're the only one on here that said "Weaver AND Lowe, interesting", so don't get mad just because a few of us corrected you. I know what you meant, but as myself and a few others pointed out, you misspoke.

sircaffey1
07-19-2005, 12:42 PM
Lowe in the playoffs...Mmmmm. I wonder if LA would be willing to pick up a portion of his salary.

DVsoxfan
07-19-2005, 01:13 PM
Lowe in the playoffs...Mmmmm. I wonder if LA would be willing to pick up a portion of his salary.

Yea I would love to have lowe

Lip Man 1
07-19-2005, 02:13 PM
Iguana:

Sorry I thought the same thing from reading your initial post. That the Sox had to take both...it was a little misleading.

Lip

Jjav829
07-19-2005, 02:16 PM
Lowe in the playoffs...Mmmmm. I wonder if LA would be willing to pick up a portion of his salary.

Lowe is the only one I would have interest in. Too bad the Dodgers gave him such a big deal though. There's no way KW would want Lowe without the Dodgers picking up a significant portion of his deal. According to Gammons, the Dodgers would want to team acquiring Lowe or Perez to pay their contract, so I think we can rule those two out.

Mickster
07-19-2005, 02:33 PM
Lowe is the only one I would have interest in. Too bad the Dodgers gave him such a big deal though. There's no way KW would want Lowe without the Dodgers picking up a significant portion of his deal. According to Gammons, the Dodgers would want to team acquiring Lowe or Perez to pay their contract, so I think we can rule those two out.

What makes a team like the Dodgers:

1. Give Lowe a ridiculous contract.
2. Offer him up for grabs to anyone who will pay his ridiculous contract 6 months after they sign him.


:?: :?: :?: :?:

samram
07-19-2005, 02:59 PM
What makes a team like the Dodgers:

1. Give Lowe a ridiculous contract.
2. Offer him up for grabs to anyone who will pay his ridiculous contract 6 months after they sign him.


:?: :?: :?: :?:

What makes them do that is having an overrated GM. I know certain WSI members place him on a pedestal due to his association with Mr. Baseball Genius up the coast there, but he screwed the pooch this year.

ChiSoxPatF
07-19-2005, 03:22 PM
I would love to pick up Weaver, Lowe, or Perez.

These would be the worst moves the Sox could actually make. Trade away talent for three underperforming pitchers that are AT BEST no better than Contreras or El Duque.

Believe, I'm NO Contreras fan and think they really need to improve over his inconsistancy and exorbinant amount of walks, but none of these three make any sense at all.

Weaver $9.35 mil 4.26 7-8
Lowe $7 mil 4.27 5-10
Perez $4.5 mil 5.06 ERA 4-5

Now if they could make a move for Brad Penny, I think that would be even better than AJ Burnett. He's signed through 2008 for $25 mil and has an option for 2009 for $7.25 mil. He fits perfectly into the Buerhle, Garcia, Garland model the Sox are going with that locks mid to late 20 something inning-eaters in for 3 years for $25-30 mil. Plus he's a power pitcher with a 96 mph 4-seamer, 94 mph 2-seamer, and a monster hook (his change is above average too but he doesn't use it enough). And he's performing to the tune of 5-5 with a 3.33 ERA. This would be a steal, even for Contreras and McCarthy and another prospect, but this is probably the most speculative rumor I've heard since the Dodgers (or anyone for that matter) wouldn't want to part with him.

Tragg
07-19-2005, 03:32 PM
Perez' salary is managable - the Dodgers just signed him, so why trade him so quickly?

Lowe just isn't that good - forget it.

Weaver, Joe Sheehan's and BP's love child - forget it. All stats, little production.

Of the 3, Perez, and realize it's a 4th/5th starter we're getting.

SABRSox
07-19-2005, 03:32 PM
What makes them do that is having an overrated GM. I know certain WSI members place him on a pedestal due to his association with Mr. Baseball Genius up the coast there, but he screwed the pooch this year.

To be fair, the Dodgers have had a lot of injuries. I don't think they've had the lineup they envisioned going into spring training on the field one time this season, with all the injuries.

That being said, JD Drew was a bad signing, and Lowe was a good pickup but at a terrible price. That contract is untradeable.

Banix12
07-19-2005, 03:39 PM
All the sox past history with Jeff Weaver shows that Weaver coming to Chicago would be a bad idea. How many beanball wars did this guy start with the Sox when he was in Detroit? Then there is the fact that this guy was one of the Boras clients the sox drafted in the late ninties who refused to sign. Just a bad idea all around.

Now Odalis Perez seems somewhat more plausable an idea. KW has been coveting him for a few years now it seems.

TheOldRoman
07-19-2005, 03:54 PM
Now Odalis Perez seems somewhat more plausable an idea. KW has been coveting him for a few years now it seems.
I agree. However, the Dodgers signed him to a back loaded contract. His deal was 3yr/ $24mil. However, he is only making $4.5 mil this year. He is making $19.5 mil over 2006 and 2007. I think it is split up at $9mil in '06 and $10.5 in '07. Still, I would get him if the Dodgers offered $3mil in cash with the deal.

Frater Perdurabo
07-19-2005, 03:58 PM
I would love to pick up Weaver, Lowe, or Perez.

Ahhhh!!!!! My eyes!!!!!

:tealpolice:
License and registration, please.

nelly+luis=gods
07-19-2005, 04:19 PM
I would love to pick up Weaver, Lowe, or Perez.

These would be the worst moves the Sox could actually make. Trade away talent for three underperforming pitchers that are AT BEST no better than Contreras or El Duque.

Believe, I'm NO Contreras fan and think they really need to improve over his inconsistancy and exorbinant amount of walks, but none of these three make any sense at all.

Weaver $9.35 mil 4.26 7-8
Lowe $7 mil 4.27 5-10
Perez $4.5 mil 5.06 ERA 4-5

Now if they could make a move for Brad Penny, I think that would be even better than AJ Burnett. He's signed through 2008 for $25 mil and has an option for 2009 for $7.25 mil. He fits perfectly into the Buerhle, Garcia, Garland model the Sox are going with that locks mid to late 20 something inning-eaters in for 3 years for $25-30 mil. Plus he's a power pitcher with a 96 mph 4-seamer, 94 mph 2-seamer, and a monster hook (his change is above average too but he doesn't use it enough). And he's performing to the tune of 5-5 with a 3.33 ERA. This would be a steal, even for Contreras and McCarthy and another prospect, but this is probably the most speculative rumor I've heard since the Dodgers (or anyone for that matter) wouldn't want to part with him.

The only thing that bothers me about Penny is the bicept nerve problems he has gone through. While I'm not sure if it going to be something consistent, I'd bet the Marlins knew about it b4 they traded him to the Dodgers last year. I suppose it doesn't matter though b/c they won't be dealing him anytime soon anyways.

samram
07-19-2005, 04:45 PM
To be fair, the Dodgers have had a lot of injuries. I don't think they've had the lineup they envisioned going into spring training on the field one time this season, with all the injuries.

That being said, JD Drew was a bad signing, and Lowe was a good pickup but at a terrible price. That contract is untradeable.

No one on this board wants the Dodgers to do well more than I do, so I wish his moves would have worked better. Valentin was also a bad signing, injuries not withstanding. Nakamura has also been a bust. Choi hasn't been impressive. Lowe is 5-10 with a mid-4 ERA, not very impressive. All the Jasons/Jaysons they have really haven't been very good. Obviously, things are tough without Gagne, but Brazoban is another move not working out. Finally, there's no excuse to have a 4.49 ERA in that park in the NL. I will give him credit for Kent, Penny, and Antonio Perez, but that's it.

Tragg
07-19-2005, 05:23 PM
No one on this board wants the Dodgers to do well more than I do, so I wish his moves would have worked better. Valentin was also a bad signing, injuries not withstanding. Nakamura has also been a bust. Choi hasn't been impressive. Lowe is 5-10 with a mid-4 ERA, not very impressive. All the Jasons/Jaysons they have really haven't been very good. Obviously, things are tough without Gagne, but Brazoban is another move not working out. Finally, there's no excuse to have a 4.49 ERA in that park in the NL. I will give him credit for Kent, Penny, and Antonio Perez, but that's it.

They made some terrible moves. Lowe's production wasn't that good in Boston; I can't recall a single one of our fans, for example, who wanted us to sign him. We got the better pitcher in El D at 1/2 the price. They paid a stiff, stiff price in trading for Brad Penny; They signed a me-first player in JD Drew, who is another one who loves the disabled list. And then Valentine for $5 mill or whatever it was - my gawd.
They caused a lot of their own problems

MRKARNO
07-19-2005, 07:17 PM
Lowe is the only one I would have interest in. Too bad the Dodgers gave him such a big deal though. There's no way KW would want Lowe without the Dodgers picking up a significant portion of his deal. According to Gammons, the Dodgers would want to team acquiring Lowe or Perez to pay their contract, so I think we can rule those two out.

Contracts aside, the one here I'd like most is Lowe. The Dodgers infield defense isn't as good as ours and I think he'd have a lot of success with Konerko, Iguchi, Uribe and Crede playing behind him. His Batting Average on balls in play is fairly high (.312) and the fact that he has 20 more hits than IP reflects that. That would go way down, as would his ERA, in front of our defense.

But that contract gets in the way of everything. Too bad, he might have made a very nice long-term addition, especially if we were serious about maintaining the best defense in baseball long-term

slavko
07-19-2005, 09:16 PM
All the sox past history with Jeff Weaver shows that Weaver coming to Chicago would be a bad idea. How many beanball wars did this guy start with the Sox when he was in Detroit? Then there is the fact that this guy was one of the Boras clients the sox drafted in the late ninties who refused to sign. Just a bad idea all around.

Now Odalis Perez seems somewhat more plausable an idea. KW has been coveting him for a few years now it seems.

You beat me to it. Can you believe the guy is making 9.35M?

BridgePortNative
07-19-2005, 09:19 PM
Heard this on Comcast Sports Nite, Jeff Weaver is now Yankee, personaly I thinkhe is going to be eaten alive in New York.

Chisox003
07-19-2005, 09:21 PM
I would welcome Weaver, Perez, or Penny, but definitely not Lowe unless we got him extremely, and I mean realllly cheap

The only problem with Weaver, obviously, is his past with the Sox...But wasnt Pierzynski the same way? Maybe not as bad, but it would take an absolute moron to come to a 62-29 team and not realize that he could be the final piece of a world series puzzle

As for Perez or Penny, I know KW was interested in Odalis, so that could be a possibilty....Personally, I think Penny has the best stuff and biggest upside of them all, but I dont see LA parting with him

Banix12
07-19-2005, 09:39 PM
The only problem with Weaver, obviously, is his past with the Sox...But wasnt Pierzynski the same way? Maybe not as bad, but it would take an absolute moron to come to a 62-29 team and not realize that he could be the final piece of a world series puzzle

Pierzynski's history against the sox was primarily of hitting game winning hits and occasionally shooting his mouth off to the press, beyond that he really wasn't a big problem. Weaver not only shot his mouth off,he was a sox draft pick who refused to sign, was responsible for a number of brawls between the sox and tigers, and I believe he even appeared on Jerry Springer before..

He is not the final piece to any puzzle, he's a headcase whose "ace potential" vanished when he left that comfortable no pressure situation in Detroit.

Tragg
07-19-2005, 11:40 PM
Any of these would battle for the 4th spot, and they'd be underdogs to get that. Cheap price? - fine. But it wouldn't be cheap. I think we need either an impact pitcher or a real cheap 5th starter. Most of the guys on the trading radar are in between.

I was no huge fan of getting BUrnett (although my tirades were 1 week ago when the price argued against was Contreras/Marte/2 prospects) and I don't think Burnett is a top level pitcher. But he's better than either of these 3 guys. He has Weaver tendencies, but he's better.

Jjav829
07-19-2005, 11:54 PM
Heard this on Comcast Sports Nite, Jeff Weaver is now Yankee, personaly I thinkhe is going to be eaten alive in New York.

Huh? Weaver was already a Yankee. He bombed in New York and was traded for Kevin Brown before last season. Weaver then improved significantly last year once he got out of New York. I don't know what you heard, but I seriously doubt you heard that he was traded to the Yankees. They've been there and done that already. It didn't work.