PDA

View Full Version : Vazquez for El Duque/Young/Viz Part II


daveeym
12-14-2005, 02:51 PM
VC Edit:

Thread split for bandwidth and server related issues.

First part is here: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63730


That said, I'm not saying that KW should PLAN for a trade of Garland at midseason, just that if he doesn't find something he likes now, he should hold on, because IMO teams will be more willing to deal at least top prospects in-season for a playoff push.
I can live with that, I just read your other post to be favoring saving up for a mid season trade. If Kenny can't make a sound trade now, that's a great luxury to have.

Also, someone a post or two above you was drooling over a mid season trade as well so I just ran with the last post on the issue.

longshot7
12-14-2005, 02:52 PM
Not bad advice but....I....want.....TEJADA!:redneck

Don't get your hopes up.

Tekijawa
12-14-2005, 02:53 PM
Interesting add in on the Javi trade per rotoworld:

When he invoked the trade demand, Vazquez made himself ineligible for free agency for three years. Of course, the White Sox might not want to go to arbitration with him after 2007 and could non-tender him.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 02:53 PM
There's an old saw that I can't recall where I read it that basically says you get more for pitchers in-season and more for hitters in the offseason.

That said, I'm not saying that KW should PLAN for a trade of Garland at midseason, just that if he doesn't find something he likes now, he should hold on, because IMO teams will be more willing to deal at least top prospects in-season for a playoff push.

And to answer beckett's concern - that's definitely there, Jon could decline. But teams know that '05 was his best year, so the flipside is that if he's repeating it, his price/value could go up. Or he might decide that KW's offer was more reasonable and sign an extension.Good pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball, and with word out that the Sox have good pitching to spare, Kenny will be getting lots of calls. I expect he'll have his pick of good offers. Let teams compete with each other to drive the price up.

beckett21
12-14-2005, 02:53 PM
And to answer beckett's concern - that's definitely there, Jon could decline. But teams know that '05 was his best year, so the flipside is that if he's repeating it, his price/value could go up. Or he might decide that KW's offer was more reasonable and sign an extension. And I don't see KW having his feet held to the fire. pitching is way way too scarce and valuable. If Jon's available, you'll have a bunch of teams ready to take him. Remember - the reason Burnett wasn't traded for a significant haul was because they attached Lowell to him. The Sox have no such issues.

My biggest concern would be that if we break the bank with Jon, there won't be enough left to re-sign Buehrle.

I'd much rather hitch my cart to Buehrle for the long haul. If you can get max value for Jon now, I'd say do it. Otherwise, just win another WS title in '06 and let him walk for nothing. :cool:

kobo
12-14-2005, 02:53 PM
BMac is ready. I'm sorry, but were you in a coma when he dominated 2 of the best-hitting teams in baseball? (Boston and Texas).

He had developed a quirk in his arm angle over the winter and it took him a while to identify it. He also wasn't using his change-up at all in his first stint in Chicago. Both of those things changed, and THAT is why he dominated and THAT is why he should be in a rotation this year.

He didn't dominate in AAA, he dominated in the majors. Were the Sox rushing things to pencil Mark Buehrle into the rotation after playing a small part in the bullpen in their last playoff appearance season?
Thanks, all I wanted was for someone to back up why BMac is ready to start.

Beauty35thStreet
12-14-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm warming up to this, but ONLY if there's a followup move. I understand the logic either way, but I'm nervous about losing Young to effectively push McCarthy from #5 to RP. I might rather keep him and take my chances at resigning Contreras at a decent price.

I'm warm to the idea too, but if this deal doesn't work, it's not going to be a little bad, it's going to be a BAD trade. Why? I"m assuming Young to be an average or better than average everyday player, BMac might get messed up, El Duque proves he still is a warrior, and Vasquez cries for some other reason.

Even if we have a BAD trade, the trade will be buffered out by the fact that we will likely be good next year despite it.

TheVulture
12-14-2005, 02:56 PM
Yes, Vasquez has struggled for the last couple season but Coop and greener pastures will hopefully result in a return to Expo form.

Another thing to remember is the D'backs defense was absolutely horrid; having some quality gloves behind him will help as well.

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 02:56 PM
FWIW, here's an interesting take from a stathead on "stuff". http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-much-can-we-learn-by-looking-at-stuff/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-much-can-we-learn-by-looking-at-stuff/)

What that means is that to project future ERA, you’d want to weight his past statistics (with an age adjustment and regression to the mean thrown in) at about 60%, and his stuff at about 40%. A pitcher’s stuff indeed tells you a lot about his future success.

How he defines "stuff", etc are all in the article. This may be obvious, but it was interesting to me to see a stathead's take on it. And for the purposes of this discussion, Vazquez has great "stuff", Garland has OK "stuff". So there's a solid chance that Javy can improve on his #s of the past 18 mo.

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 02:59 PM
I'm warm to the idea too, but if this deal doesn't work, it's not going to be a little bad, it's going to be a BAD trade. Why? I"m assuming Young to be an average or better than average everyday player, BMac might get messed up, El Duque proves he still is a warrior, and Vasquez cries for some other reason.

Even if we have a BAD trade, the trade will be buffered out by the fact that we will likely be good next year despite it.

Remember, the choice is between 2 years of Vazquez(one at $9M, 1 at arb level) and Young. Because the underlying assumption is that Garland was going to be gone after '06 regardless.

Given the makeup of the team with the other pitchers, Thome, etc, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

TheVulture
12-14-2005, 02:59 PM
I'm warm to the idea too, but if this deal doesn't work, it's not going to be a little bad, it's going to be a BAD trade. Why? I"m assuming Young to be an average or better than average everyday player, BMac might get messed up, El Duque proves he still is a warrior, and Vasquez cries for some other reason.



This trade isn't near the risk of backfiring as the Thome trade. When you consider the possibilities for acquiring an impact player as a result of this trade, I don't see how you can't like it.

TheVulture
12-14-2005, 03:01 PM
Don't get your hopes up.

How about Abreu?

nodiggity59
12-14-2005, 03:03 PM
Remember, the choice is between 2 years of Vazquez(one at $9M, 1 at arb level) and Young. Because the underlying assumption is that Garland was going to be gone after '06 regardless.

Given the makeup of the team with the other pitchers, Thome, etc, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

No, it's 2 years at $9mil per in addition to a year of arb.

TheVulture
12-14-2005, 03:05 PM
What's with the title of the pt. 2 thread? Is it Owens involved now, not Young?

WhiteSoxFan84
12-14-2005, 03:08 PM
What's with the title of the pt. 2 thread? Is it Owens involved now, not Young?

That's a mistake, it should be Young.

FedEx227
12-14-2005, 03:09 PM
Yes, Vasquez has struggled for the last couple season but Coop and greener pastures will hopefully result in a return to Expo form.

Yea, especially since he'll be back to playing in front of no-fans!

I'm really not sure what to think now. I'm happy we got rid of El Duque and not Garland or Contreras just yet.

batmanZoSo
12-14-2005, 03:10 PM
Good pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball, and with word out that the Sox have good pitching to spare, Kenny will be getting lots of calls. I expect he'll have his pick of good offers. Let teams compete with each other to drive the price up.

That's so true. We have 5 quality veterans, none of which are making an extraordinary salary. With the way pitching salaries are going, those are 5 hot commodities right now to say the least.

voodoochile
12-14-2005, 03:13 PM
That's a mistake, it should be Young.

That is correct. You have all just witnessed a Voodoo Brainfart Special.

Er... I mean... it was a test to see if you are all paying attention. Well done. otherwise I would have posted later in the thread:

vc future post:

PWNED! Losers... I can't believe none of you caught that I changed the deal in the thread title for part II. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:tongue::D::redface:

SOXit2EM
12-14-2005, 03:19 PM
FWIW, here's an interesting take from a stathead on "stuff". http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-much-can-we-learn-by-looking-at-stuff/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-much-can-we-learn-by-looking-at-stuff/)



And for the purposes of this discussion, Vazquez has great "stuff", Garland has OK "stuff". You don't win 18 games w/ OK stuff. Garland has Great stuff as well. A NASTY 93 mph sinker, VERY good changeup, AND slider......Both of these guys have GREAT stuff, and IMO, right now we have 5 possible #1 starter's on our staff, w McCarthy having the ability to be 6............... We are in a very envyable position to make another Big trade for a another Bat, which I think we need to really fortify our position to repeat as WS Champs. I for one would trade Contreras over Garland, but I'm not KW. Let's see what happens next........

Randar68
12-14-2005, 03:21 PM
Any word yet on how much money the D'Backs are including in this deal? I haven't seen it reported, but for including Chris Young in the deal, it had better be damn-near half the remaining guaranteed money...

Randar68
12-14-2005, 03:21 PM
Garland has Great stuff as well. A NASTY 93 mph sinker,

What circus gun are you using?

longshot7
12-14-2005, 03:24 PM
How about Abreu?

He is a possibility. I didn't mean to seem a jerk - I love Tejada - but as others have pointed out, the Orioles are not shopping him, and it's extremely unlikely he'll be traded. Abreu is being shopped, however, so trade talk about him seems okay. Pods for Abreu?

California Sox
12-14-2005, 03:24 PM
Any word yet on how much money the D'Backs are including in this deal? I haven't seen it reported, but for including Chris Young in the deal, it had better be damn-near half the remaining guaranteed money...

Randar, I'm probably chairman of the FOCY, but you could be vice-chair. Are you as disturbed about trading him as I am?

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 03:24 PM
Any word yet on how much money the D'Backs are including in this deal? I haven't seen it reported, but for including Chris Young in the deal, it had better be damn-near half the remaining guaranteed money...Several people here have reported $5M total. Not a lot, but also consider that other than Young, all they got was an over the hill starter and a back of the bullpen reliever.

Do you see any way he can play with them this year? I didn't think he was that close to being major-league ready. Is he the kind of kid that can be hurt by being rushed too soon?

nevr say dye sox
12-14-2005, 03:25 PM
Randar68 $5 mil the D Backs are paying back:cool:

Paulwny
12-14-2005, 03:25 PM
Any word yet on how much money the D'Backs are including in this deal? I haven't seen it reported, but for including Chris Young in the deal, it had better be damn-near half the remaining guaranteed money...

It was posted somwhere in all of this, 5 mil I believe was the number.

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 03:26 PM
No, it's 2 years at $9mil per in addition to a year of arb.

Let me clarify. The "no-deal" alternative was Garland at an arb award likely not that different from Vazquez' salary (say $7 or 8M), then having Jon walk but keeping Chris Young. Instead, before factoring in any possible trade of Garland, you get the 2 years at $9M (before factoring in the Duque/Viz savings) + the arb year, but no Young.

So the "difference" becomes Vazquez at $9M in '07 and the arb award in '08 combined with the loss of Young. That effectively extends your WS contending window by 1 year, since instead of 3 pitchers signed for '07, you now have 4. And 2 for '08 instead of 1.

And that's before factoring in what you get in a trade of Garland.

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 03:29 PM
Several people here have reported $5M total. Not a lot, but also consider that other than Young, all they got was an over the hill starter and a back of the bullpen reliever.

Do you see any way he can play with them this year? I didn't think he was that close to being major-league ready. Is he the kind of kid that can be hurt by being rushed too soon?

Net salary added in the trade was $12M over 2 years. Vazquez was at $24/2 and came with $5M cash. Duque was at $5/1 and Viz at $2/1. Both were pretty much spare or easily replaceble parts, so it ends up being Young for Vazquez at $6M/yr, or half of his total salary.

KRS1
12-14-2005, 03:34 PM
You don't win 18 games w/ OK stuff. Garland has Great stuff as well. A NASTY 93 mph sinker, VERY good changeup, AND slider......Both of these guys have GREAT stuff, and IMO, right now we have 5 possible #1 starter's on our staff, w McCarthy having the ability to be 6............... We are in a very envyable position to make another Big trade for a another Bat, which I think we need to really fortify our position to repeat as WS Champs. I for one would trade Contreras over Garland, but I'm not KW. Let's see what happens next........

Actually, he throws his sinker anywhere between 89-91, his 2-seamer at about 92, and his 4 seamer at 94. Youre not too far off but he doesnt throw his sinker @93mph.

SOXit2EM
12-14-2005, 03:36 PM
Net salary added in the trade was $12M over 2 years. Vazquez was at $24/2 and came with $5M cash. Duque was at $5/1 and Viz at $2/1. Both were pretty much spare or easily replaceble parts, so it ends up being Young for Vazquez at $6M/yr, or half of his total salary. Basically, we got Vazquez this year w/ out increasing the payroll.......Of course next year he will cost 12.5 mil.

TheKittle
12-14-2005, 03:38 PM
My concern about JV is he is terrible in the postseason. JV has a 9.00 ERA in the postseason. El Duque had great success in the postseason before he came to the White Sox. His performance vs Boston in Game 3 was great, and not unexpected. He's been there and done that.


But you got to get to the postseason first and JV should be more healthy and reliable in the regular season. 5 of the last 6 seasons with 200 or more innings. The one he missed he had 198 innings. One the other hand El Duque has only pitched 200 innings once and has two seasons where he didn't even pitch 100 innings during the past six years.

SOXit2EM
12-14-2005, 03:38 PM
Actually, he throws his sinker anywhere between 89-91, his 2-seamer at about 92, and his 4 seamer at 94. Youre not too far off but he doesnt throw his sinker @93mph. I have seen 93 on the gun plenty of times when he throws his 2 seam sinker, unless the radar is off. :?: I have noticed some games he throws it between 89-91, and other's 91-93.

KRS1
12-14-2005, 03:38 PM
Basically, we got Vazquez this year w/ out increasing the payroll.......Of course next year he will cost 12.5 mil.

You could look at it that way, but thats not the way we will appoint the 5mil. It will probably go with 2 mil this season and the other 3 we got towards next year.

kwolf68
12-14-2005, 03:39 PM
What circus gun are you using?

I don't know about sinker, but Garland was getting his fastball up to 94 consistently in the ALCS, hitting 95 one time.

KRS1
12-14-2005, 03:41 PM
I have seen 93 on the gun plenty of times when he throws his 2 seam sinker, unless the radar is off. :?: I have noticed some games he throws it between 89-91, and other's 91-93.

His 2-seamer and sinker are 2 different pitches. There are some guys out there who throw the blended pitch, but Jon finds more success confusing hitters timing with a hard breaker to the right and one that that breaks well down and to the right(it can be a ***** to try and decipher the 2 pitchers in that .7 seconds).

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 03:42 PM
Basically, we got Vazquez this year w/ out increasing the payroll.......Of course next year he will cost 12.5 mil.

That's an allocation question, and the same argument can be made for Thome. Is he coming at a -$10M salary in 2006 and then $12M each in '07 & '08? In general, I think teams amortize those types of payments internally even if the cash flows are lumped.

SOXit2EM
12-14-2005, 03:46 PM
His 2-seamer and sinker are 2 different pitches. There are some guys out there who throw the blended pitch, but Jon finds more success confusing hitters timing with a hard breaker to the right and one that that breaks well down and to the right(it can be a ***** to try and decipher the 2 pitchers in that .7 seconds). i have heard sinker and 2 seamer. Either way that 93 mph pitch down and in is NASTY. That's his bread and butter no doubt.

KRS1
12-14-2005, 03:48 PM
i have heard sinker and 2 seamer. Either way that 93 mph pitch down and in is NASTY. That's his bread and butter no doubt.

I dont think he throws either at 93, but I'm gonna pop in a tape right now and check that out for you.

Randar68
12-14-2005, 03:50 PM
i have heard sinker and 2 seamer. Either way that 93 mph pitch down and in is NASTY. That's his bread and butter no doubt.

Argh. If he threw his 93 MPH fastball down and in regularly, it would get crushed. He throws that pitch up in the zone because there it looks just like a hanging sinker that is by the guy before he realizes he's not actually swinging at a sinker.

His sinker is in the 88-90 mph range probably around 90% of the time he throws it.

maurice
12-14-2005, 03:52 PM
Any word yet on how much money the D'Backs are including in this deal?

Nightengale (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-12-14-whitesox-dbacks-vazquez_x.htm) usually is pretty accurate. He says $8 mil.

Frater Perdurabo
12-14-2005, 03:56 PM
I'm with Randar on this.

Jjav is right; I've never seen Chris Young play. However, as an organization, if the Sox wan't to stay on top for the long haul (more than 5 years or so), they need to have a continuous supply of minor league talent. Even the Yankees are finding that money does not grow on trees and that buying the top free agents does not guarantee championships.

If the Sox want to focus on keeping a solid stable of starting pitchers (which I ENDORSE), and they already have committed themselves to paying Paul Konerko, something has to give budget-wise. This model has allowed the Braves to capture 14 straight division titles.

The Sox minor league strength is in outfielders and pitchers. With a plethora of strong outfield prospects, there's a very good chance at least one of them will become a very good to great player and that at least one more will become a servicable major league role-player.

Yet by trading away their very best outfield prospect, one who has the tools and talent to become, as Randar said, a 40/40 kind of center fielder (with legit Gold Glove abilities), the Sox have reduced their odds of successfully and inexpensively building an outfield from within. And moreover, they trade him for an expensive FLYBALL pitcher who will pitch half his games in "Coors East."

Kenny's cashing in all his chips in the hopes of repeating as World Champs. Let's hope the gamble pays off; this is high-stakes poker.

SOXit2EM
12-14-2005, 03:58 PM
Argh. If he threw his 93 MPH fastball down and in regularly, it would get crushed. He throws that pitch up in the zone because there it looks just like a hanging sinker that is by the guy before he realizes he's not actually swinging at a sinker.

His sinker is in the 88-90 mph range probably around 90% of the time he throws it. I agree he doesn't throw it at 93 ALL the time, but i have seen him hit that according to the gun, and no it was not a 4 seamer. And nobody maintains the same velocity for every start.

KRS1
12-14-2005, 03:59 PM
To get back at you soxitoem, he threw his sinker @ 90 regularly during the playoffs, his 2-seamer @92, and his 4-seamer @ 94 hitting 95 a couple times during the couple of innings I watched.

anewman35
12-14-2005, 04:00 PM
My concern about JV is he is terrible in the postseason. JV has a 9.00 ERA in the postseason.

That's in 3 games, 11 innings pitched. It's hardly enough to be very meaningful.

SOXit2EM
12-14-2005, 04:04 PM
To get back at you soxitoem, he threw his sinker @ 90 regularly during the playoffs, his 2-seamer @92, and his 4-seamer @ 94 hitting 95 a couple times during the couple of innings I watched.I have seen him hit 93 w/ his 2 seamer during the regular season.......Let's just say he hit's between 91-93 w/ it and call it a day :cool:

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 04:05 PM
Yet by trading away their very best outfield prospect, one who has the tools and talent to become, as Randar said, a 40/40 kind of center fielder (with legit Gold Glove abilities), the Sox have reduced their odds of successfully and inexpensively building an outfield from within. And moreover, they trade him for an expensive FLYBALL pitcher who will pitch half his games in "Coors East."

Kenny's cashing in all his chips in the hopes of repeating as World Champs. Let's hope the gamble pays off; this is high-stakes poker.

I disagree. This move is all about trading the future of Young for the 07-08 future of Vazquez, plus whatever they get for Garland in trade. This is about contending past '06 by keeping 4 good or better starters locked in for '07.

Conceptually, you're right that you want to keep your top prospects to give you cheap alternatives. But Kenny's seen that you maximize your chances of contending by ensuring you have a dominant pitching staff. Kenny can still keep Dye for '08, or move Anderson to RF and plug in Owens. And you still have Sweeney in the wings.

EDIT: There's also the possibility of flipping Garland for prospects either before or in-season. Deadline deal of Garland for Milledge if the Mets are contending?

mdep524
12-14-2005, 04:10 PM
Nightengale (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-12-14-whitesox-dbacks-vazquez_x.htm) usually is pretty accurate. He says $8 mil.Hmm, everywhere else seems to be reporting $5 million. Nightengale says $8 million. That would be $3 million extra the Sox have to play with.

Randar68
12-14-2005, 04:19 PM
I disagree. This move is all about trading the future of Young for the 07-08 future of Vazquez, plus whatever they get for Garland in trade. This is about contending past '06 by keeping 4 good or better starters locked in for '07.

Conceptually, you're right that you want to keep your top prospects to give you cheap alternatives. But Kenny's seen that you maximize your chances of contending by ensuring you have a dominant pitching staff. Kenny can still keep Dye for '08, or move Anderson to RF and plug in Owens. And you still have Sweeney in the wings.

I don't know, but perhaps Abreu would be a possibility to play RF with Dye and Garland/Contreras going for Abreu+prospects?

Owens in CF is almost as much of a non-starter as Pods in CF.

daveeym
12-14-2005, 04:19 PM
I'm with Randar on this.

Jjav is right; I've never seen Chris Young play. However, as an organization, if the Sox wan't to stay on top for the long haul (more than 5 years or so), they need to have a continuous supply of minor league talent. Even the Yankees are finding that money does not grow on trees and that buying the top free agents does not guarantee championships.

If the Sox want to focus on keeping a solid stable of starting pitchers (which I ENDORSE), and they already have committed themselves to paying Paul Konerko, something has to give budget-wise. This model has allowed the Braves to capture 14 straight division titles.

The Sox minor league strength is in outfielders and pitchers. With a plethora of strong outfield prospects, there's a very good chance at least one of them will become a very good to great player and that at least one more will become a servicable major league role-player.

Yet by trading away their very best outfield prospect, one who has the tools and talent to become, as Randar said, a 40/40 kind of center fielder (with legit Gold Glove abilities), the Sox have reduced their odds of successfully and inexpensively building an outfield from within. And moreover, they trade him for an expensive FLYBALL pitcher who will pitch half his games in "Coors East."

Kenny's cashing in all his chips in the hopes of repeating as World Champs. Let's hope the gamble pays off; this is high-stakes poker. I'll go with Kenny and Co. know something that you and Randar don't and 40k 40bb is the only 40/40 you'll ever see out of Young.

Randar68
12-14-2005, 04:20 PM
I'll go with Kenny and Co. no something that you and Randar don't and 40k 40bb is the only 40/40 you'll ever see out of Young.

:?: English please?

Glad we can get an educated opinion from someone who has seen them play.

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 04:22 PM
I don't know, but perhaps Abreu would be a possibility to play RF with Dye and Garland/Contreras going for Abreu+prospects?

Owens in CF is almost as much of a non-starter as Pods in CF.

IMO there's a ton of options for a chip as valuable as Garland. A grade being Miggy, but B being guys like Abreu, Vernon Wells, etc. And C being prospects. Milledge may be a stretch, but if you can get a guy who's a step behind where Young was for Jon, and still get the 2 extra years out of Vazquez, that's a good net trade.

California Sox
12-14-2005, 04:32 PM
IMO there's a ton of options for a chip as valuable as Garland. A grade being Miggy, but B being guys like Abreu, Vernon Wells, etc. And C being prospects. Milledge may be a stretch, but if you can get a guy who's a step behind where Young was for Jon, and still get the 2 extra years out of Vazquez, that's a good net trade.

Here's a radical concept Young > Milledge (who never walks). Why does everyone on this board like non-Sox prospects more than Sox players?

kwolf68
12-14-2005, 04:33 PM
Here's a radical concept Young > Milledge (who never walks). Why does everyone on this board like non-Sox prospects more than Sox players?

:b&b you mean like these guys?

Ventura Fan 23
12-14-2005, 04:35 PM
UGH, I am so PISSED. Why give up Chris Young for freaking Vazquez? I HATE THIS TRADE! On top of us losing what seems to be our prospect with the brightest future, it appears Brandon McCarthy won't even be able to pitch in the majors.

daveeym
12-14-2005, 04:35 PM
:?: English please?

Glad we can get an educated opinion from someone who has seen them play. You missed my correction and I think with the mispell you can translate that. I'll go with the guy getting paid to run the team rather than the guy who's seen them play, bitched about every prospect shipped out, and then acts like a condescending ******* to everyone else.

Chisox003
12-14-2005, 04:36 PM
I disagree. This move is all about trading the future of Young for the 07-08 future of Vazquez, plus whatever they get for Garland in trade. This is about contending past '06 by keeping 4 good or better starters locked in for '07.

Conceptually, you're right that you want to keep your top prospects to give you cheap alternatives. But Kenny's seen that you maximize your chances of contending by ensuring you have a dominant pitching staff. Kenny can still keep Dye for '08, or move Anderson to RF and plug in Owens. And you still have Sweeney in the wings.

EDIT: There's also the possibility of flipping Garland for prospects either before or in-season. Deadline deal of Garland for Milledge if the Mets are contending?
I highly, highly, highly doubt that KW would pull the trigger on a midseason deal involving any of our big name guys, including Garland.

If (when) we are in 1st place come the trade deadline, JG will in all likelihood be a big part of that. I dont see Kenny dealing him just because he wont be back in '07.

The goal here is to win in 2006, not 2007.

It is our duty to repeat
:churrosarmy:

Flight #24
12-14-2005, 04:46 PM
Here's a radical concept Young > Milledge (who never walks). Why does everyone on this board like non-Sox prospects more than Sox players?

:?:

Milledge put up a .399OBP in 2004 and about .390 in 2005 over 2 stops. Young's was .365 and .377. Young does have more power, but is also 2 years older than Lastings.

Milledge was ranked the #11 prospect in all of baseball way back in March by Baseball America. He then hit .327 with a .390-ish OBP. The fact remains that there are some prospects out there that ARE better than the Sox's.

EDIT: here's the ranking from BA http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040228top1004.html (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040228top1004.html)

KRS1
12-14-2005, 04:48 PM
I highly, highly, highly doubt that KW would pull the trigger on a midseason deal involving any of our big name guys, including Garland.

If (when) we are in 1st place come the trade deadline, JG will in all likelihood be a big part of that. I dont see Kenny dealing him just because he wont be back in '07.

The goal here is to win in 2006, not 2007.

It is our duty to repeat


:churrosarmy:

If the goal is just about 06' then why did we bother with Javi? The main reason(besides kenny's apparent undying affection for him)was that he would stablize our roto for the next 3 years and we were worried about what Jon would do after 06'. I think KW is already thinking about 07', and 08' just as much as this next season. After all he said he would never make a move that would just improve the team for one season and looks towards the long term in every move he makes.

KRS1
12-14-2005, 04:55 PM
IMO there's a ton of options for a chip as valuable as Garland. A grade being Miggy, but B being guys like Abreu, Vernon Wells, etc. And C being prospects. Milledge may be a stretch, but if you can get a guy who's a step behind where Young was for Jon, and still get the 2 extra years out of Vazquez, that's a good net trade.

If Jon really wants to go West then there are some great prospect pitchers out there to be had,Greg Miller(LAD), Broxton(LAD),Billingsley(LAD),Matt Cain(SF),Merkin Valdez(SF). These are just the tip of the iceberg as it comes with the pithcers these teams have in their org., I would like to see Jon outta the AL and these two teams can offer the most when it comes to younger guys. My dream forget Tejada, Abreu, Crawford and the like, lets get Noah Lowry,Erick Threets, and Matt Cain for Garland Borch and a prospect.

CubsfansareDRUNK
12-14-2005, 05:01 PM
UGH, I am so PISSED. Why give up Chris Young for freaking Vazquez? I HATE THIS TRADE! On top of us losing what seems to be our prospect with the brightest future, it appears Brandon McCarthy won't even be able to pitch in the majors.

yep, i agree

Fake Chet Lemon
12-14-2005, 05:10 PM
I'm with Randar on this.


Kenny's cashing in all his chips in the hopes of repeating as World Champs. Let's hope the gamble pays off; this is high-stakes poker.


I'm game for this. World Series windows are too small. Gotta go for it. We can't be happy with one ring and then start rebuilding for the future. No way. Let Florida do that routine.

Randar68
12-14-2005, 05:15 PM
You missed my correction and I think with the mispell you can translate that. I'll go with the guy getting paid to run the team rather than the guy who's seen them play, bitched about every prospect shipped out, and then acts like a condescending ******* to everyone else.

I didn't bitch about Haigwood or Gio. Then again, facts never get in the way of a good hissy fit by a blindly-trusting ignoramous.

At least you got the condescending part right, although you certainly deserved it.

Randar68
12-14-2005, 05:20 PM
I'm game for this. World Series windows are too small. Gotta go for it. We can't be happy with one ring and then start rebuilding for the future. No way. Let Florida do that routine.

And let me reiterate my point for those that may not be reading it again (not referring to anyone in particular)...

I don't hate this trade, but I am being cautious about it. IF KW flips one of Jose/Jon for some big-time help elsewhere and signs the other to an extension with this leverage, then I really like this deal.

If KW is not able to do the above, he gave up our best AND highest-ceiling prospect for a back-of-the-rotation pitcher, and that I am not a fan of.

I hate to give up quality people and players, but it is understandable and it is something you deal with regularly in this business. I just have a certain threshold that must be met for me to consider this trade justifiable, and that measure relates to the moves that happen in the aftermath of this move. Therefore, judgement is being reserved (much like was required after the C. Lee trade last year)

nodiggity59
12-14-2005, 05:21 PM
What I wonder is, can KW afford to NOT deal JG? With 6 solid SP in hand, doesn't he have to deal JG in order to protect himself and get value in return, especially if said value helps us in 06 and beyond?

Madvora
12-14-2005, 05:28 PM
What I wonder is, can KW NOT afford to deal JG? With 6 solid SP in hand, doesn't he have to deal JG in order to protect himself and get value in return, especially if said value helps us in 06 and beyond?I think it's coming, but with who we have left, I'd like to see KW send of Vazquez for something else.
I don't think we need anything though. Garland is probably going to be gone because we've waited forever for him to be good and we only get one year out of the guy when it looks like he's going to be outstanding.
The thing is that I'm fine with Uribe at SS and fine with Anderson or Owens in CF. I'd rather just have Garland back.

All I wanted the Sox to do this off-season was to dump Marte and replace Hernandez in the rotation with McCarthy. (Oh yeah, and sign Konekero and replace Everett...)

Daver
12-14-2005, 05:28 PM
What I wonder is, can KW NOT afford to deal JG? With 6 solid SP in hand, doesn't he have to deal JG in order to protect himself and get value in return, especially if said value helps us in 06 and beyond?

No, you send McCarthy to Charlotte and let him pitch there as insurance against an injury to one of the starting five.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 05:31 PM
What I wonder is, can KW NOT afford to deal JG? With 6 solid SP in hand, doesn't he have to deal JG in order to protect himself and get value in return, especially if said value helps us in 06 and beyond?Think about it this way: How many teams have five starters better than Jon Garland? I can almost guarantee you that most of the other 29 GM's are right now trying to figure out a way to put together a package to land him. But unlike the D-backs, Kenny doesn't have a deadline looming. Worst case he starts McCarthy in AAA or the bullpen next season until he gets a good enough offer. But I seriously doubt it will take that long.

daveeym
12-14-2005, 05:50 PM
I didn't bitch about Haigwood or Gio. Then again, facts never get in the way of a good hissy fit by a blindly-trusting ignoramous.

At least you got the condescending part right, although you certainly deserved it. Try waiting to see how this plays out and putting trust into the paid professional with a good track history rather than an arrogant blow hard amateur who talks smack.

PAPChiSox729
12-14-2005, 05:56 PM
UGH, I am so PISSED. Why give up Chris Young for freaking Vazquez? I HATE THIS TRADE! On top of us losing what seems to be our prospect with the brightest future, it appears Brandon McCarthy won't even be able to pitch in the majors.

I would have to think that with this trade one of the six starters, probably Garland, is on his way out. I don't know enough about Young but from what I here, he can be very good one day. Javier's recent numbers are a little worrisome to me. I am hoping that Coop can fix something. I trust KW knows what he is doing. I do know that if this trade gets Tejada in a White Sox uni, I will love it no matter what becomes of Young.

Chips
12-14-2005, 05:57 PM
I must say that I love the deal.:supernana:

FARMEO
12-14-2005, 06:02 PM
KW is setting up his rotation for the future, which will still be strong after 2006, he didn't want to be caught short if Contreras and Garland walk.

bafiarocks03
12-14-2005, 06:02 PM
I'm so sick of these trades! Gosh Kenny, just keep the team the same! Please..No more! Me and my friend and Viz were tight, and no not no more!..*tear*

Tragg
12-14-2005, 06:09 PM
Think about it this way: How many teams have five starters better than Jon Garland? I can almost guarantee you that most of the other 29 GM's are right now trying to figure out a way to put together a package to land him. But unlike the D-backs, Kenny doesn't have a deadline looming. Worst case he starts McCarthy in AAA or the bullpen next season until he gets a good enough offer. But I seriously doubt it will take that long. He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team. It better be a hell of a package. Williams throw in lagniappe by ADDING Viz and including our best prospect bar none (instead of another top, although secondary prospect like Owens or Sweeney). For our lagniappe, we get a playoff history of an ERA approaching 10.

This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.

kittle42
12-14-2005, 06:09 PM
I'm so sick of these trades! Gosh Kenny, just keep the team the same! Please..No more! Me and my friend and Viz were tight, and no not no more!..*tear*

Your baseball insight is unprecedented.

noquitter
12-14-2005, 06:10 PM
Your baseball insight is unprecedented.She's not posting anything most of the other "freak outs" aren't thinking. :redneck

kittle42
12-14-2005, 06:11 PM
He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team. It better be a hell of a package. Williams throw in lagniappe by ADDING Viz and including our best prospect bar none. This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.

20,000 people voting on ESPN.com gave the Sox the better edge of the deal at 68% to 32%. I don't think much of the opinion of people who vote on ESPN polls, but at least it is some minor indication as to how the outside-the-Sox world looks at this.

nodiggity59
12-14-2005, 06:12 PM
He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team. It better be a hell of a package. Williams throw in lagniappe by ADDING Viz and including our best prospect bar none. This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.

No. We do need starters b/c it is extremely likely at least one, if not more will get injured next year due to the 05 workload and WBC. In a fantasy baseball world, we don't need more starters. In this one, to be a pitching and defense team, we do.

That doesn't even bring up the issue of JG and JC being gone after this year and the wildness that is the pitching FA market.

CHISOXFAN13
12-14-2005, 06:16 PM
He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team. It better be a hell of a package. Williams throw in lagniappe by ADDING Viz and including our best prospect bar none (instead of another top, although secondary prospect like Owens or Sweeney). For our lagniappe, we get a playoff history of an ERA approaching 10.

This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.

LOL, this post is comical. The man has pitched zero innings for the organization, yet the deal ranks with the Ritchie trade. *****.

And can we please stop talking about the Vazquez' failures in the playoffs. 11 innings is an extremely small smaple size.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2005, 06:16 PM
From the 'official' White Sox site. From the story on the Vasquez deal:

"Vazquez's impending addition gives the White Sox six quality starters on their staff, but at least two sources close to the situation expect all six to start Spring Training with the team in Tucson. Jon Garland currently is arbitration eligible and reportedly turned down a three-year offer from the White Sox, leaving him to test the free agent waters after the 2006 season.

Contreras, who will earn $8 million in 2006, also can become a free agent if the White Sox don't sign him to a new deal by Nov. 15, 2006. Vazquez provides insurance against either one of those hurlers exiting. With the departure of Hernandez, Marte and Vizcaino, sixth starter Brandon McCarthy figures to open the season out of the bullpen. However, he is expected to be a rotation stalwart in the not too distant future.

The six starters also guard against the workload amassed by pitchers such as Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia and Garland over the last four or five years, not to mention Buehrle and Garcia's foray into the inaugural World Baseball Classic. Both were issues mentioned by Williams at the Winter Meetings."

Lip

Randar68
12-14-2005, 06:20 PM
20,000 people voting on ESPN.com gave the Sox the better edge of the deal at 68% to 32%. I don't think much of the opinion of people who vote on ESPN polls, but at least it is some minor indication as to how the outside-the-Sox world looks at this.

This is because probably 2% of the people who voted even know who Chris Young is.

Looking at it as El Duque and Vizcaino for Vasquez, most would say "Sox win!"...

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 06:21 PM
He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team. It better be a hell of a package. Williams throw in lagniappe by ADDING Viz and including our best prospect bar none (instead of another top, although secondary prospect like Owens or Sweeney). This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.Mediocre pitcher? You, my friend, are in for a surprise. Vazquez has tremendous stuff. I guarantee by July you'll be singing a different tune. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that by July, there will be no disagreement that they're better off with Vazquez than Garland. Plus, Garland is now trade bait of sufficient quality to bring a Grade A player in return. So in the end the trade will have turned one good prospect, one spare part (Hernandez), one dime-a-dozen reliever (Viz) and a top starter into a better starter and another top-drawer player and possibly another team's top prospect at a position where they're not logjammed.

Don't kid yourself that they could have thrown in a secondary prospect instead. The D-backs wanted a CF. It was Young that was key to this deal, not Hernandez and Vizcaino.

Taliesinrk
12-14-2005, 06:21 PM
From the 'official' White Sox site. From the story on the Vasquez deal:

"Vazquez's impending addition gives the White Sox six quality starters on their staff, but at least two sources close to the situation expect all six to start Spring Training with the team in Tucson. Jon Garland currently is arbitration eligible and reportedly turned down a three-year offer from the White Sox, leaving him to test the free agent waters after the 2006 season.

Contreras, who will earn $8 million in 2006, also can become a free agent if the White Sox don't sign him to a new deal by Nov. 15, 2006. Vazquez provides insurance against either one of those hurlers exiting. With the departure of Hernandez, Marte and Vizcaino, sixth starter Brandon McCarthy figures to open the season out of the bullpen. However, he is expected to be a rotation stalwart in the not too distant future.

The six starters also guard against the workload amassed by pitchers such as Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia and Garland over the last four or five years, not to mention Buehrle and Garcia's foray into the inaugural World Baseball Classic. Both were issues mentioned by Williams at the Winter Meetings."

Lip


Under the Radar.. I really don't think we start the season with 6 starters.. but who knows?? it did work pretty well last year..

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 06:26 PM
From the 'official' White Sox site. From the story on the Vasquez deal:

"Vazquez's impending addition gives the White Sox six quality starters on their staff, but at least two sources close to the situation expect all six to start Spring Training with the team in Tucson. Jon Garland currently is arbitration eligible and reportedly turned down a three-year offer from the White Sox, leaving him to test the free agent waters after the 2006 season.

Contreras, who will earn $8 million in 2006, also can become a free agent if the White Sox don't sign him to a new deal by Nov. 15, 2006. Vazquez provides insurance against either one of those hurlers exiting. With the departure of Hernandez, Marte and Vizcaino, sixth starter Brandon McCarthy figures to open the season out of the bullpen. However, he is expected to be a rotation stalwart in the not too distant future.

The six starters also guard against the workload amassed by pitchers such as Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia and Garland over the last four or five years, not to mention Buehrle and Garcia's foray into the inaugural World Baseball Classic. Both were issues mentioned by Williams at the Winter Meetings."

LipI don't believe for a second that the Sox are going to go into 2006 with six starters. The worries over the WBC are overblown. Pitchers are not going to pitch that many innings. The last thing these guys are going to do is jeapordize multi-million dollar careers.

I see this as Kenny telling teams that want one of these guys that he's not going to be buffaloed into giving up someone for less than full value in return.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-14-2005, 06:32 PM
Under the Radar.. I really don't think we start the season with 6 starters.. but who knows?? it did work pretty well last year..

It worked out excellend. I'd rather have 6 vs. the four we have had prior to 2005. Our #5 spot was a disaster and prevented us from reaching the playoffs the previous years.

With our budget the best way to improve our team is via trades as we do not have the extra currency the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox have to get top players via free agency. Kenny needs to make trades and sign low cost free agents on the margins. He has done a good job building the team and he will continue to do a good job.

Now is not the time to freak out. Whether we have 6 starters or if 1 is flipped for a stud we will be in good shape defending our 2005 World Championship. Tejada and or Abreu is the nuts (poker term). Can you imagine this lineup?

Podsednik
Iguchi
Tejada
Konerko
Thome
Dye
AJ
Anderson
Crede

Buehrle
Garcia
Contreras
Vazquez
Garland / McCarthy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3738270804319212084&q=family+guy+-+can%27t+touch+me

Taliesinrk
12-14-2005, 06:32 PM
I don't believe for a second that the Sox are going to go into 2006 with six starters. The worries over the WBC are overblown. Pitchers are not going to pitch that many innings. The last thing these guys are going to do is jeapordize multi-million dollar careers.

I see this as Kenny telling teams that want one of these guys that he's not going to be buffaloed into giving up someone for less than full value in return.

+2.. and good use of "buffaloed".

Tragg
12-14-2005, 06:37 PM
Mediocre pitcher? You, my friend, are in for a surprise. Vazquez has tremendous stuff. I guarantee by July you'll be singing a different tune. Where's that stuff been for the last 4 years and for most of his career?
I am consistent. I don't like trading for "Stuff" that has had a lot of chance to shine, but hasn't. When most wanted Burnett for his stuff (in return for Contreras and McCarthy), I didn't want that stuff either. I was right then, and I hope I'm wrong now.
And if we're flipping, I wish we'd have flipped via a 3 way. Because now, the other teams have the leverage on US because we need to trade or should given other areas that we'd like to improve. (although Williams' comments could be construed as an attempt to deflect that leverage - that we're happy with 6 starters - I'll believe Williams does the buffaloing when I see it).
And if we couldn't have gotten this pitcher without Young, there was a solution - don't do the deal.

HomeFish
12-14-2005, 06:38 PM
Where's that stuff been for the last 4 years and for most of his career?
I am consistent. I don't like trading for "Stuff" that has had a lot of chance to shine, but hasn't. When most wanted Burnett for his stuff (in return for Contreras and McCarthy), I didn't want that stuff either. I was right then, and I hope I'm wrong now.

How'd you feel about acquiring Contreras and his stuff?

Palehose13
12-14-2005, 06:39 PM
How'd you feel about acquiring Contreras and his stuff?

Is this the same HomeFish? THE HomeFish???

HomeFish
12-14-2005, 06:41 PM
Is this the same HomeFish? THE HomeFish???

I liked the Contreras trade, just as I like this trade. You should know by now how I feel about power pitchers.

Perhaps you may be confused by my opposition to the Garcia trade, but that was entirely due to the short contract left on Garcia at the time of the trade. (Plus, I admit I was a bit high on Miguel Olivo).

maurice
12-14-2005, 07:08 PM
I don't hate this trade, but I am being cautious about it. IF KW flips one of Jose/Jon for some big-time help elsewhere and signs the other to an extension with this leverage, then I really like this deal....Therefore, judgement is being reserved (much like was required after the C. Lee trade last year)

Try waiting to see how this plays out and putting trust into the paid professional with a good track history....

So, you two are in agreement, then.
:rolleyes:

JB98
12-14-2005, 07:09 PM
I HATE THIS TRADE.

I think absolutely nothing of Vazquez. He pitched his way out of New York. He bitched his way out of Arizona. He's overpaid. He had mediocre statistics pitching in the piss-poor NL West. Kenny and Ozzie are just in love with this guy, and I don't understand it. Last offseason, they were thinking of sending PK to Arizona for Vazquez. THANK GOD that didn't happen.

I wouldn't trade a steaming pile of crap for Vazquez, let alone these three players. We have a hole in the bullpen now due to the departure of Viz, and I'm furious that Young was traded. Just furious.

Palehose13
12-14-2005, 07:11 PM
I liked the Contreras trade, just as I like this trade. You should know by now how I feel about power pitchers.

Perhaps you may be confused by my opposition to the Garcia trade, but that was entirely due to the short contract left on Garcia at the time of the trade. (Plus, I admit I was a bit high on Miguel Olivo).

No, I'm confused cause since you've come back you've been dangerously close to optimistic. :wink:

SOXintheBURGH
12-14-2005, 07:16 PM
My internet connection has been down all day and I just came to the library simply for WSI..

I absolutely love this trade..

God, we rule.

beckett21
12-14-2005, 07:40 PM
He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team.
The most promising since the great Jeremy Reed, I presume? :rolleyes:

This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.
Now you're just making yourself look silly.


How many *can't miss* prospects never turn out to be anything? A lot of them. Once again I will invoke the name of Corey Patterson, Mr. 5-tools himself.

Vazquez is a much better pitcher than you give him credit for. Assuming you have ever seen him pitch, or did you just look at a stat sheet to make your assessment? There is a reason he was one of the most sought-after pitchers on the market a few years ago, and he is just now entering his prime.

Certainly a lot of bitching going on over an unproven-at-the major-league level prospect, who I'll admit I have never seen play. I'll assume you have?

I'll give Kenny the benefit of the doubt on this one. After last offseason and season, he deserves it.

SOXintheBURGH
12-14-2005, 07:42 PM
I'll give Kenny the benefit of the doubt on this one. After last offseason and season, he deserves it.

No ****.

He must be really pissed about losing that award to Shapiro.

beckett21
12-14-2005, 07:53 PM
No ****.

He must be really pissed about losing that award to Shapiro.

Tell you what, he sure isn't sitting around patting himself on the back. The guy is working hard, and seems to have a method to his percieved *madness*.

I love the passion he has for the Sox and for winning. How anyone can fault him for that is beyond me. He already had my respect, but he has cemented it now. :cool:

Jjav829
12-14-2005, 07:54 PM
He just gave up our most promising prospect in ages for a mediocre pitcher who will pitch 5th starter for this team. It better be a hell of a package. Williams throw in lagniappe by ADDING Viz and including our best prospect bar none (instead of another top, although secondary prospect like Owens or Sweeney). For our lagniappe, we get a playoff history of an ERA approaching 10.

This goes down with the Ritchie trade, except that in the Ritchie trade we needed a starter; here we don't.

Each post is getting worse and worse? Comparing this to the Ritchie trade? LOL! First off, the Ritchie trade didn't turn out that bad. Josh Fogg sucks. Sean Lowe is out of baseball and Kip Wells, 18-game loser last year, is actually regressing. What an awful trade.

I'm still waiting for a reason from you as to why Chris Young is such a can't miss prospect. What have you seen from him to make you think this guy is such a great prospect?

beckett21
12-14-2005, 08:01 PM
I'm still waiting for a reason from you as to why Chris Young is such a can't miss prospect. What have you seen from him to make you think this guy is such a great prospect?

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_279913.jpg

I was a can't miss 40/40 prospect too; now they can't GIVE me away. :whiner:

eastchicagosoxfan
12-14-2005, 08:03 PM
I like the trade. The staff got a lot younger, and El Duque might give Arizona 125 innings as a starter next year. He will otherwise be on the DL. The Sox now have a surplus of what 29 other teams want----starting pitching. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. In Kenny we trust, as far as the future goes. He, and the Sox, and us, their fans, are the only team talking about repeating.

PAPChiSox729
12-14-2005, 08:09 PM
The Sox now have a surplus of what 29 other teams want----starting pitching. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. In Kenny we trust, as far as the future goes. He, and the Sox, and us, their fans, are the only team talking about repeating.

Exactly. We have what everyone else wants. And KW has so much leverage now because of it. He knows what he is doing and has all of my trust.

samram
12-14-2005, 08:23 PM
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_279913.jpg

I was a can't miss 40/40 prospect too; now they can't GIVE me away. :whiner:

Heh. Has Young had one AB above AA? Furthermore, even if he becomes a good player, he'll start with Arizona. It's not like they traded him to Cleveland or Minnesota.

delben91
12-14-2005, 08:24 PM
Nothing I'm going to say is new, so I'm just going to get on board with liking the trade and will move along.

RallyBowl
12-14-2005, 08:47 PM
Nothing I'm going to say is new, so I'm just going to get on board with liking the trade and will move along.
Yeah, there's nothing to add, so I'll just sayMe likey.And...In Kenny We Trust.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 08:56 PM
Where's that stuff been for the last 4 years and for most of his career?
I am consistent. I don't like trading for "Stuff" that has had a lot of chance to shine, but hasn't. When most wanted Burnett for his stuff (in return for Contreras and McCarthy), I didn't want that stuff either. I was right then, and I hope I'm wrong now.
And if we're flipping, I wish we'd have flipped via a 3 way. Because now, the other teams have the leverage on US because we need to trade or should given other areas that we'd like to improve. (although Williams' comments could be construed as an attempt to deflect that leverage - that we're happy with 6 starters - I'll believe Williams does the buffaloing when I see it).
And if we couldn't have gotten this pitcher without Young, there was a solution - don't do the deal.Where has it been? It was on pretty clear display while he was with Montreal. His W-L record might not show it because he was playing for some pretty crappy teams, but look at his other numbers and tell me he's a 5th starter.:?:

He also was pretty dominant his first half-season with the Yankees before their coaching staff worked their "magic" on him. And he had a pretty good season with Arizona if you look past the surface. He got rocked a few times, which inflated his ERA, but he had 20 quality starts, which tied him for 19th in the NL (Garland had 22). His 1.25 WHIP was comparable to Garland's 1.17. But with the proper coaching, I have no doubt he can return to what he was doing in Montreal.

And I really don't understand why other teams have "leverage". Just the opposite is true. Worst case they can put McCarthy in the bullpen or send him back to AAA for a while. But Garland's trade value will never be higher. He'll bring either a top-drawer position player or a very good player + a good prospect in return. I'll be shocked if he's not wearing another uniform within a few weeks.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2005, 09:00 PM
Ken Rosenthal's take on 'the trade,' and the Sox off season. He thinks Williams isn't done yet...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730 (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730)

Lip

SABRSox
12-14-2005, 09:03 PM
There isn't much to add, but I'll throw in my two cents.

I like the deal a lot. I think it gives Kenny a bunch of options, like flipping one of Garland or Contreras and signing the other, using one of the 6 as injury insurance, etc. The ability to easily fix unforseen problems to a roster is a luxury most GM's don't have. Kenny now has that ability, as far as the starting pitching is concerned.

There is a hole in the bullpen, though, with the exit of Viz. If McCarthy fills that spot, then fine, though I think McCarthy would become the long man in the pen. At either rate, Kenny still needs to find a lefty for the pen. I'm sure he's got something up his sleeve there.

The only real loss is Young. But as everyone says, he's not a sure thing. Alex Rodriguez was a sure thing. Mark Teixera was a sure thing. I haven't heard Chris Young compared to those guys in terms of "can't miss prospect." But I have heard him referred to as "can't miss prospect" in the vein of Corey Patterson. If he ends up having 40/40 seasons, good for him. I wish him the best. But with prospects there's never any guarantee that he'd do it with us, or more importantly, that he'd help us win in 2006.

Vazquez helps us in 2006, and 2007. Maybe even 2008. That's when we need the help. By 2008 or 2009, when Young would finally be playing everyday, who knows what shape the Sox could be in. While I hope they'll have an Atlanta Braves-esque run in the AL Central (with better playoff results) they could just as easily become what the Twinkies have now become. And that's the key to the deal for me. Vazquez helps in 2006, when the Sox are at their strongest, and that's something Young could not do.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-14-2005, 09:07 PM
Each post is getting worse and worse? Comparing this to the Ritchie trade? LOL! First off, the Ritchie trade didn't turn out that bad. Josh Fogg sucks. Sean Lowe is out of baseball and Kip Wells, 18-game loser last year, is actually regressing. What an awful trade.

I'm still waiting for a reason from you as to why Chris Young is such a can't miss prospect. What have you seen from him to make you think this guy is such a great prospect?


While comparing this trade to the Ritchie trade is asinine, the Ritchie trade was a debacle. 5-15, 6.06 ERA cannot be described as anything but a debacle. At least Kip Wells (3.58 & 3.28 ERA in 2002 / 2003) & Joss Fogg gave them a .500 record on a team 10 & 20 games under .500 at the league minimum.

The best thing about the Ritchie trade was he was gone after 1 season. That is why any reference of this trade to the Ritchie trade is totally off base. Vazquez is an excellent strikeout pitcher and someone which excites many people in baseball. I saw an early White Sox Yankee game in 2004 and his curve was absolutely nasty. If he can work with Cooper to keep the ball lower he will cut down on his HR totals and be a great addition to the team.

Ritchie had 90 starts before coming to the White Sox and had NL ERAs of 3.49, 4.81 & 4.47 before coming to the White Sox as a 30 year old.

Vazquez has ERAs post 2000 of 3.42, 3.91, 3.24 (with Montreal age 24-26 seasons), 4.91 with New York and 4.42 in a home run park for 2005 (Arizona). He had a terrible start but settled down and pitched well for over 1/2 a season.

I like the trade and expect to like it more after any followup deal and beyond 2006 when another pitcher is locked up under contract entering his 30s.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-14-2005, 09:20 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5947/gamelog;_ylt=AlQYdnq0loqL_jb50hvzSmCFCLcF

Looking at Vazquez' 2005 you can see he was either feast or famine.

12 Terrible Starts - 59 1/3 innings, 70 earned runs

14 Very Good Starts - 101 2/3 innings, 32 earned runs

7 Awesome Starts - 54 2/3 innings, 4 earned runs

He obviously has the stuff to dominate when he is on and I look forward to Don Cooper working with him to avoid those 12 terrible starts (or at least reduce them to 5 or 6). This is why I am optimistic.

beckett21
12-14-2005, 09:37 PM
Heh. Has Young had one AB above AA? Furthermore, even if he becomes a good player, he'll start with Arizona. It's not like they traded him to Cleveland or Minnesota.
It may be an extreme example, but it gets the message across.

I certainly don't mean to question any of the minor league talent evaluators here, namely guys like Randar and maurice who really know their stuff. I have the utmost respect for their evaluations and opinions.

I have no clue what Young is or is not capable of. I openly admit that. But I have heard the song and dance too many times about too many *can't miss* guys to lose any sleep over this one. Plus, with all the positives I have heard about Anderson, Owens, and Sweeney, I hardly think the cupboard is bare.

Didn't we hear all the same crap when Kenny traded Reed--the second coming of Ted Williams?

Javier Vazquez is a proven, quality MLB starter with the ability to dominate. This move makes the big club better. No doubt about that in my mind. The pitching staff will be strong for several years to come, and quality starting pitching is the hardest commodity to come by as mentioned by so many others in these threads.

The Wimperoo
12-14-2005, 09:39 PM
Why would we put McCarthy in the bullpen? It seems like a waste of service time to me. His best value would be in the starting rotation. If KW isn't able to trade anyone by the start of the season, wouldn't it be better for the future of the White Sox to have McCarthy start in the AAA. Let him stay sharp by pitching every 5th day, and stay on a schedule with his arm stretched out. I would hope that a long reliever wouldn't be necessary very often, at least not enough to waste McCarthy's talent as that role.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 09:50 PM
Why would we put McCarthy in the bullpen? It seems like a waste of service time to me. His best value would be in the starting rotation. If KW isn't able to trade anyone by the start of the season, wouldn't it be better for the future of the White Sox to have McCarthy start in the AAA. Let him stay sharp by pitching every 5th day, and stay on a schedule with his arm stretched out. I would hope that a long reliever wouldn't be necessary very often, at least not enough to waste McCarthy's talent as that role.McCarthy is not going to the bullpen or back to AAA. Another trade is coming. Just who or where remains to be seen, but it's going to happen. Book it.

SOecks
12-14-2005, 10:02 PM
McCarthy is not going to the bullpen or back to AAA. Another trade is coming. Just who or where remains to be seen, but it's going to happen. Book it.
QFT

maurice
12-14-2005, 10:02 PM
Didn't we hear all the same crap when Kenny traded Reed

Not from Randar or me. The Reed supporters were the pro-BB / anti-KW / SABR camp. Almost all of those guys stopped posting when the Sox starting rolling towards the AL Central title.

Daver
12-14-2005, 10:05 PM
Not from Randar or me. The Reed supporters were the pro-BB / anti-KW / SABR camp. Almost all of those guys stopped posting when the Sox starting rolling towards the AL Central title.
LMAO.

Chris Young had a higher ceiling than any of the three Beckett named, but was well spent for a legit starter with two years left on his contract, and the D-backs paying five mil of it to boot.

The price for starting pitchers is going to continue to skyrocket, Kenny was smart to help the D-backs out.

beckett21
12-14-2005, 10:06 PM
Not from Randar or me. The Reed supporters were the pro-BB / anti-KW / SABR camp. Almost all of those guys stopped posting when the Sox starting rolling towards the AL Central title.

I wasn't implying that you guys were saying that, it was more of a generalization from the *anti-KW/anti-trade anybody on the Sox* camp. :redneck

Just illustrating a point.

maurice
12-14-2005, 10:08 PM
I wasn't implying that you guys were saying that, it was more of a generalization from the *anti-KW/anti-trade anybody on the Sox* camp. :redneck Just illustrating a point.

No problem, doc. I made the same point in a different thread.
:cool:

billyvsox
12-14-2005, 10:12 PM
There is really onlu one thing that bothers me about this trade, and that is that Javier Vasquez STINKS!!! He is not up to snuff like the rest of our stuff and he WILL complain about every bad outing (excuses, etc...). El Duke is clearly near the end of his career, but his clubhouse presence alone makes him a better fit for the Sox.

I count NINE men out:

Rowand
Thomas
Everett
Blum
Harris (likely gone)
Timo (likely gone)
El Duke
Vizcaino
Marte

Thsts like over 30% of the team from last year. Is anyone else concerened about this ???

ChiSoxRowand
12-14-2005, 10:14 PM
This is another one of those trades where we have to see what we do next before you can judge it too much. I am so-so on the trade. Vazquez hasn't had great numbers the last couple of years (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vazquja01.shtml) If he can pitch like he did the firt hald each of the last two years, the trade will turn out great. I guess this means that Garland is pretty much officically out the door after the year.

ShoelessJoeS
12-14-2005, 10:14 PM
Thsts like over 30% of the team from last year. Is anyone else concerened about this ???
When you pick up guys like Thome, Rob Mack and Vasquez...no sir.

MadetoOrta
12-14-2005, 10:16 PM
Concerned? About what?

Thome, Mackowiak, Javier Vazquez are all huge additions. And what comes back to the Sox after the inevitable trade of garland/contreras/vazquez will likely make them that much better.

samram
12-14-2005, 10:17 PM
There is really onlu one thing that bothers me about this trade, and that is that Javier Vasquez STINKS!!! He is not up to snuff like the rest of our stuff and he WILL complain about every bad outing (excuses, etc...). El Duke is clearly near the end of his career, but his clubhouse presence alone makes him a better fit for the Sox.

I count NINE men out:

Rowand
Thomas
Everett
Blum
Harris (likely gone)
Timo (likely gone)
El Duke
Vizcaino
Marte

Thsts like over 30% of the team from last year. Is anyone else concerened about this ???

No. That 30% is the exact 30% I would expect to see gone. Did you really want to pay Hernandez $5 million to be an honorary coach? Are you really crying over losing Blum, Harris, and Timo? Everett has been replaced. Rowand's replacement is either here (Anderson) or on the way via trade. The relievers need to be replaced, but there's plenty of time for that.

Oh, and Vazquez doesn't stink and I've never heard that he was a whiner.

billyvsox
12-14-2005, 10:19 PM
My concern is primarily based on "chemistry". It was clear that our biggest advantage last season was the right mix of players coming together. Losing 9 of those guys means "coming together" as a team has to start over and may not happen. I am really worried about this.

billyvsox
12-14-2005, 10:21 PM
SamRam,

I live in Phoenix and followed Vasquez all the way last year, and I can assure you that he IS a whiner and does STINK.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 10:21 PM
No. That 30% is the exact 30% I would expect to see gone. Did you really want to pay Hernandez $5 million to be an honorary coach? Are you really crying over losing Blum, Harris, and Timo? Everett has been replaced. Rowand's replacement is either here (Anderson) or on the way via trade. The relievers need to be replaced, but there's plenty of time for that.

Oh, and Vazquez doesn't stink and I've never heard that he was a whiner.But....but....If they get into an extra inning game in the World Series, who's going to hit the game-winning home run if they don't have Geoff Blum?:rolleyes:

How can they possibly hope to compete without key cogs like Willie Harris and Damaso Marte?

teal not realy necessary, is it?

KRS1
12-14-2005, 10:21 PM
My concern is primarily based on "chemistry". It was clear that our biggest advantage last season was the right mix of players coming together. Losing 9 of those guys means "coming together" as a team has to start over and may not happen. I am really worried about this.

From what Ive seen and heard Rob and Jim are two of the most congenial guys in baseball, theyll fit in with ease. Javi remains to show his true face after a couple of uncomfortable years in a row but i fully expect to have him fit in.

samram
12-14-2005, 10:23 PM
My concern is primarily based on "chemistry". It was clear that our biggest advantage last season was the right mix of players coming together. Losing 9 of those guys means "coming together" as a team has to start over and may not happen. I am really worried about this.

No. The Sox's biggest advantage last season was they had the best pitching staff in baseball. You really think they were the only team whose players got along with one another?

Furthermore, how many new players were on the team last season? A bunch. Yet somehow, they won the WS despite only knowing each other for about a month before the season began.

Jjav829
12-14-2005, 10:26 PM
My concern is primarily based on "chemistry". It was clear that our biggest advantage last season was the right mix of players coming together. Losing 9 of those guys means "coming together" as a team has to start over and may not happen. I am really worried about this.

I don't think we have to worry much about that. Who exactly have we lost that was so important to team chemistry? Let's run down the players we have lost. You tell me which one of these guys was a major factor in team chemistry. Damaso Marte. Jose Vizcaino. El Duque. Carl Everett. Geoff Blum. Frank Thomas. Aaron Rowand. The last guy I mentioned is about the only one you can make a case for as being a huge part of the team chemistry. And he was traded for a guy who will fit in just fine with the rest of the clubhouse.

JB98
12-14-2005, 10:33 PM
SamRam,

I live in Phoenix and followed Vasquez all the way last year, and I can assure you that he IS a whiner and does STINK.

Vazquez whined his way right out of Arizona, didn't he? I know he demanded a trade. I just don't like the guy. He hasn't pitched well since the All-Star break of '04. As much as I loved the Thome move and the Mackowiak acquisition, I dislike this trade just as much.

From what I saw in spring training last year, I was impressed with Young. I'm not ready to declare him a 40/40 guy. That's a little silly. But it's also a little silly to claim he is the next Corey Patterson.

I sure hope another move is coming, as some here have suggested. The bottom line is I don't like the trade because I don't like Vazquez.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 10:37 PM
Vazquez whined his way right out of Arizona, didn't he? I know he demanded a trade. I just don't like the guy. He hasn't pitched well since the All-Star break of '04. As much as I loved the Thome move and the Mackowiak acquisition, I dislike this trade just as much.

From what I saw in spring training last year, I was impressed with Young. I'm not ready to declare him a 40/40 guy. That's a little silly. But it's also a little silly to claim he is the next Corey Patterson.

I sure hope another move is coming, as some here have suggested. The bottom line is I don't like the trade because I don't like Vazquez.The guy wanted out of Arizona to make it easier on his family travelling back and forth from home and he was willing to give up a year of free agency to do it. What a whiner.

Frater Perdurabo
12-14-2005, 10:39 PM
My reluctance to endorse this trade has less to do with Chris Young and more to do with my perception that his absence, plus Vasquez's contract, could make it less likely the Sox can afford to re-sign Jon Garland and Mark Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

Fielding a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield gives the Sox more payroll flexibility to retain Garland and Buehrle.

Subtracting the Sox best OF prospect decreases the odds the Sox will be able to field a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield. Before, they had four promising OF prospects (Young, Owens, Anderson, Sweeney). Now, they have three.

Not having Young increases the odds they will have to pay more money to veterans like Podsednik, Dye or others to field a productive outfield. This, plus the cost of Vazquez's contract, gives the Sox less ability to retain both Garland and Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

I hope Kenny's calculated gamble pays off - it's World Series or bust in 2006 - because the Sox must be able to increase their payroll above the $100 million mark if they want to keep both Garland and Buehrle long-term.

Brian26
12-14-2005, 10:40 PM
There is really onlu one thing that bothers me about this trade, and that is that Javier Vasquez STINKS!!! He is not up to snuff like the rest of our stuff and he WILL complain about every bad outing (excuses, etc...). El Duke is clearly near the end of his career, but his clubhouse presence alone makes him a better fit for the Sox.

I count NINE men out:

Rowand
Thomas
Everett
Blum
Harris (likely gone)
Timo (likely gone)
El Duke
Vizcaino
Marte

Thsts like over 30% of the team from last year. Is anyone else concerened about this ???

Winning teams don't rebuild...they reload. What's the other saying? If you're not getting better, you're getting worse. Have trust in KW.

RedPinStripes
12-14-2005, 10:41 PM
For all of you bitching about this deal. In Kenny we trust! Then man has a plan. He built a WS champion and is improving the team so we can try for another ring. Trust him...............I do.

JB98
12-14-2005, 10:42 PM
The guy wanted out of Arizona to make it easier on his family travelling back and forth from home and he was willing to give up a year of free agency to do it. What a whiner.

I'm not buying that sob story.

Regardless, he hasn't pitched well since the All-Star break of '04. Kenny and Ozzie are infatuated with him because he pitched two good games against the Sox as a member of the Yankees early in '04. We didn't need to make this trade.

JB98
12-14-2005, 10:44 PM
For all of you bitching about this deal. "In Kenny we trust"! Then man has a plan. He built a WS champion and is improving the team so we can try for another ring. Trust him...............I do.

I like Kenny, and I'm glad he's our GM. But there's no law that I have to agree with every move he makes.

ShoelessJoeS
12-14-2005, 10:45 PM
Winning teams don't rebuild...they reload. What's the other saying? If you're not getting better, you're getting worse. Have trust in KW.
Exactly...as Sox fans, Kenny has earned our trust. Who are we to even question his moves? He completely revamped the team in '05, and we won a championship. Believe people, IN KENNY WE TRUST!!!

RedPinStripes
12-14-2005, 10:47 PM
I like Kenny, and I'm glad he's our GM. But there's no law that I have to agree with every move he makes.

I'm just sick of hearing Sox fans piss and moan about anything after they won the World Series. There has been negative thoughts from a lot of poeple on every move. The only way I would be bitching about moves they made this year is if they pulled what the Marlins did.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 10:47 PM
My reluctance to endorse this trade has less to do with Chris Young and more to do with my perception that his absence, plus Vasquez's contract, could make it less likely the Sox can afford to re-sign Jon Garland and Mark Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

Fielding a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield gives the Sox more payroll flexibility to retain Garland and Buehrle.

Subtracting the Sox best OF prospect decreases the odds the Sox will be able to field a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield. Before, they had four promising OF prospects (Young, Owens, Anderson, Sweeney). Now, they have three.

Not having Young increases the odds they will have to pay more money to veterans like Podsednik, Dye or others to field a productive outfield. This, plus the cost of Vazquez's contract, gives the Sox less ability to retain both Garland and Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

I hope Kenny's calculated gamble pays off - it's World Series or bust in 2006 - because the Sox must be able to increase their payroll above the $100 million mark if they want to keep both Garland and Buehrle long-term.But Vazquez will, ultimately, cost less than Garland, who figures to get traded anyway. I think you'll find this saves them money after 2006. And it's entirely possible that they'll get a good prospect included in any Garland trade. If it's at another position where they're not so logjammed, that's a net plus, since there wasn't room for all those OF prospects anyway. Like the CLee trade last year, I don't think you can judge this one in isolation. Kenny has been getting inquiries from numerous teams about Garland. I don't think he would have done this deal except he knew that he was going to be able to get good value from Garland in trade.

Ol' No. 2
12-14-2005, 10:49 PM
I'm not buying that sob story.I didn't realize you were so personally familiar with his situation.

Edit: And in fact, if you look past W-L, you'll find he actually pitched about equivalent to Garland last year. WHIP and number of quality starts were similar.

JB98
12-14-2005, 10:53 PM
I'm just sick of hearing Sox fans piss and moan about anything after they won the World Series. There has been negative thoughts from a lot of poeple on every move. The only way I would be bitching about moves they made this year is if they pulled what the Marlins did.

There haven't been negative thoughts from me until now. I defended the Thome move while many around here bemoaned the loss of the beloved A-Row and talked about the supposed destruction of "team chemistry." Unloading Marte for a useful part like Mackowiak was A GREAT MOVE by KW, IMO. But I feel totally the opposite about this trade.

We won the World Series. Great. Now, I want to win again in 2006. Is it so hard to understand that I feel we'd be better off with the three players we traded than we will be with Vazquez? If I'm wrong, I'll be the first one to admit it.

batmanZoSo
12-14-2005, 10:56 PM
My reluctance to endorse this trade has less to do with Chris Young and more to do with my perception that his absence, plus Vasquez's contract, could make it less likely the Sox can afford to re-sign Jon Garland and Mark Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

Fielding a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield gives the Sox more payroll flexibility to retain Garland and Buehrle.

Subtracting the Sox best OF prospect decreases the odds the Sox will be able to field a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield. Before, they had four promising OF prospects (Young, Owens, Anderson, Sweeney). Now, they have three.

Not having Young increases the odds they will have to pay more money to veterans like Podsednik, Dye or others to field a productive outfield. This, plus the cost of Vazquez's contract, gives the Sox less ability to retain both Garland and Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

I hope Kenny's calculated gamble pays off - it's World Series or bust in 2006 - because the Sox must be able to increase their payroll above the $100 million mark if they want to keep both Garland and Buehrle long-term.

It may not be home-grown, but it's certainly cheap at the moment with Pods, Anderson and Dye. And productive. Even if you add a Johnny Damon, it's not at a level where I see it hampering us down the road. The left side of the infield fits into that category as it is. Although Uribe was acquired in a trade and not home-grown, it was at a young age and before he'd proven anything really.

JB98
12-14-2005, 11:03 PM
I didn't realize you were so personally familiar with his situation.

Edit: And in fact, if you look past W-L, you'll find he actually pitched about equivalent to Garland last year. WHIP and number of quality starts were similar.

When Vazquez failed in New York, it was "He wants to go back to the National League." Now that he failed in Arizona, it is "He wants to be closer to his family." The bottom line is he isn't the pitcher he was in Montreal. His ERA was a point higher than JG's last year, and he pitched in the weak NL West.

DickAllen72
12-14-2005, 11:04 PM
I don't think we have to worry much about that. Who exactly have we lost that was so important to team chemistry? Let's run down the players we have lost. You tell me which one of these guys was a major factor in team chemistry. Damaso Marte. Jose Vizcaino. El Duque. Carl Everett. Geoff Blum. Frank Thomas. Aaron Rowand. The last guy I mentioned is about the only one you can make a case for as being a huge part of the team chemistry. And he was traded for a guy who will fit in just fine with the rest of the clubhouse.

Carl Everett was a MAJOR part of the team chemistry. I'm not saying they won't have good chemistry this year, just answering your question.

FarWestChicago
12-14-2005, 11:20 PM
SamRam,

I live in Phoenix and followed Vasquez all the way last year, and I can assure you that he IS a whiner and does STINK.Well that's certainly a hell of a lot more than KW, Ozzie or Coop bring to the table. I'm just shattered. :o:

FarWestChicago
12-14-2005, 11:21 PM
Vazquez whined his way right out of Arizona, didn't he? I know he demanded a trade. I just don't like the guy. He hasn't pitched well since the All-Star break of '04. As much as I loved the Thome move and the Mackowiak acquisition, I dislike this trade just as much. Holy crap, next season is ****ed. Damn, I had some hope until I saw what you experts have posted. :(:

FarWestChicago
12-14-2005, 11:23 PM
I'm just sick of hearing Sox fans piss and moan about anything after they won the World Series. There has been negative thoughts from a lot of poeple on every move. The only way I would be bitching about moves they made this year is if they pulled what the Marlins did.OK, I'm feeling better. Way to go, Red! :cool:

longshot7
12-14-2005, 11:27 PM
I'm just sick of hearing Sox fans piss and moan about anything after they won the World Series. There has been negative thoughts from a lot of poeple on every move. The only way I would be bitching about moves they made this year is if they pulled what the Marlins did.

totally agree. what do we have to complain about? We won the freakin' world series!!!! I think Kenny has earned our trust - Let's wait and see before we jump off the bridge.

beckett21
12-14-2005, 11:37 PM
From what I saw in spring training last year, I was impressed with Young. I'm not ready to declare him a 40/40 guy. That's a little silly. But it's also a little silly to claim he is the next Corey Patterson.


Nobody is insinuating that Young is going to be the next Corey Patterson.

Okay, maybe I was. :redneck

It's certainly not a crime to disagree with this trade. Personally I like the move, because I am still envisioning the Vazquez who was with the Expos, not the last year and a half incarnation. I think that this situation will suit him well, and he will thrive here. The only sure thing about prospects is that there are no, or very few, sure things.

On the flip side, Javier could be a bust and Young could win 5 MVP awards. Who knows? Nothing is certain in life. That's the risk in playing the game.

Young is still an unknown quantity in that he has to prove it at the major league level. Vazquez has proven himself in the past, has been a workhorse, and has remained healthy. Plus, he is locked up for essentially 3 years, and he is only 29 years old. A power pitcher in the prime of his career.

This trade has the potential to benefit both sides. I don't wish Young to be a bust just to validate the deal. I hope he has a nice career. My hope is that Vazquez will return to form, and I believe he will. The talent is there.

Ward Hershberger
12-14-2005, 11:46 PM
I'm still intrigued with the possibility of the Sox using a quality, full-time 6 man rotation. The only complaint may come from the pitchers themselves who would be limited to an average of 27 starts ea - not enough opportunities to win 18-20 games and reach "elite" status.

Tragg
12-14-2005, 11:49 PM
But Vazquez will, ultimately, cost less than Garland, who figures to get traded anyway. I think you'll find this saves them money after 2006. And it's entirely possible that they'll get a good prospect included in any Garland trade. If it's at another position where they're not so logjammed, that's a net plus, since there wasn't room for all those OF prospects anyway. Like the CLee trade last year, I don't think you can judge this one in isolation. Kenny has been getting inquiries from numerous teams about Garland. I don't think he would have done this deal except he knew that he was going to be able to get good value from Garland in trade. I'm responding to you because I respect your opinion; not that I'm ragging.

It depends on how they do the accounting. Do they recognize the entire amount that Az gave them THIS year, or do they amortize it over the remaining contract years. I'm less concerned with how they report it, than I am with how they view it internally regarding their own budget. For example, if the Sox internally look at our budget as Vasquez salary minus the whole amount, then the poster's point above is valid. And they may look at it that way and figure, hey, well cut something else next year.

If he made the trade to flip, why the rush? I seriously doubt anyone would give Az what Kenny Williams did for this level of ballplayer. Why not wait until you have the deal to flip and do them together, or one right after the other?

We're taking a Yankees approach without their payroll. Because in 2-3 years, not only is our staff up for big raises, but Dye and Pods will be pretty worn out. We know the minor league pitchers aren't anywhere close, but by keeping our young outfielders, it's safe bet that one will pan out to ease the payroll burden. Well, we just traded far and away our best prospect. So we'll need 3-4 starters plus 2 outfielders in the next 3 years.

So not only do we not help ourselves this year, we also hurt ourselves in the future. That, plus, Vasquez' peformance has been less than stellar, makes me really not like this trade. Just my opinion.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2005, 11:49 PM
Billy V says:

Rowand
Thomas
Everett
Blum
Harris (likely gone)
Timo (likely gone)
El Duke
Vizcaino
Marte

Now let's take a look at the 'dear, departed...'

Rowand can play, no question. Many will tell you however that he reached his offensive ceiling in 2004 and that he'll never again hit 25 home runs or so and drive in 80 runs. There's an old baseball saying credited to Branch Rickey, 'better to trade a player one year to soon then one year to late.'

Thomas is the greatest player in White Sox history but with his leg there were NO guarantees, absolutely zero that he is going to remain healthy for a full season let alone to be able to say, run from first to third base on a single.

Everett is a gamer and a tough guy. He had a great season last year however there was simply NO place for him to play with the re-signing of Konerko and the trade for Thome. He was in the same situation as Frank only Carl at least is healthy.

Blum is a spare part. With respect to his contribution in the post season guys like him are a dime a dozen.

Harris (see Blum)

Perez (see Harris, see Blum)

Hernandez is coming off two stints on the DL, is older then dirt and we have no idea if he can consistently pitch out of the bullpen which is where he was heading if he stayed with the team.

Vizcaino was a pretty good pitcher for the Sox. Had a rough outing or three but did well. I was sorry to lose him but there's another baseball saying, 'you have to give something to get something.'

Marte has electric stuff...unfortunately we haven't seen it since 2003. Head case who quit on the team in the heat of a pennant race.

Overall in a perfect world I'd still like to have Rowand, Everett and Vizcaino. All the others weren't going to see a lot of action in 2006 even if they stuck around for various reasons.

Overall I'll take Konerko, Thome, Vasquez and Mackoviak thank you.

And remember Kenny isn't done yet he still needs to pick up an arm or two for the bullpen.

Lip

nedlug
12-15-2005, 12:01 AM
I know that Kenny's made some great moves in this offseason and in the past. I do have trust in KW, but I think that all (well, most) of the points raised by the trade-haters are valid ones (as well as the points raised by the trade-lovers).

However, I'm not exactly sure about this one. Only time will tell if this trade will be good, and overall, I believe that Kenny should have earned our trust enough to let us ride this one out and see how it ends.

I wish the trade-lovers wouldn't squash every bad point about the trade brought up, though. Everyone needs to realize that Kenny thinks that this will work out, but he could look like a complete fool with this trade. That's the risk you have to take as a GM. Blind trust is for the lemmings up north - the reason Sox fans are so great is because they are able to have great baseball discussions about everything that happens to their beloved Black and White.

Tragg
12-15-2005, 12:05 AM
Each post is getting worse and worse? Comparing this to the Ritchie trade? LOL! First off, the Ritchie trade didn't turn out that bad. Josh Fogg sucks. Sean Lowe is out of baseball and Kip Wells, 18-game loser last year, is actually regressing. What an awful trade.

I'm still waiting for a reason from you as to why Chris Young is such a can't miss prospect. What have you seen from him to make you think this guy is such a great prospect?
Didn't turn out that bad??? Now you're suggeting that the Ritchie trade wasn't a bad trade? Were you watching the White Sox from 2001-2004. (Emphasis on 2004). Did you note the biggest weakness of the team? That would have been the back end of our rotation, and those 2 could have provided a more than competent peformance. We may have won a division had we not made that trade. Plus, we could have flipped them for something else when one or both weren't good enough to make our staff (neither at their best could make this staff- but they sure as hell could have for the 4 years prior). Plus, Ritchie gave us a NEGATIVE performance. He hurt us.
Comparing it to Ritchie is a bit of hypebole on my part, but the comparison's there. They had similarly mediocre careers; in the Ritchie trade we traded 2 prospects and a middle reliever; here, we traded 1 prospect, a starter and a middle reliever.

When you find the quote where I said that Young is a can't miss prospect, let me know. I never said that. I said he's far and away our best prospect, gleaned from people who actually know about such things on this board. Prospects have value. I prefer not to fritter away the most valuable on mediocre veterans (and I judge him to be mediocre looking at stats re his recent performance, his AL performance and his playoff performance - I don't claim to be a scout).

You've made your position clear that trading top prospects for mediocre veterans is the way to build a baseball team. We'll just have to disagree philosophically on that one.

I do wonder what's going to happen when Pods, Dye, Thome, Buehrle, Garland, Conteras all have to be replaced (or given raises) within a 1-2 year period, with little support in the top minor leagues. Any ideas?

A. Cavatica
12-15-2005, 12:07 AM
:KW

"Let's make it double or nothing."

chisoxlove
12-15-2005, 12:10 AM
Just an idea.....Garland/McCarthy, Anderson, (and possible prospects) for Baez and Crawford. The deal seems to make sense for both sides, as it would strengthen both teams where they need it most. Could be a $$$ issue, but the Sox may put up some cake for this one. Please tell me I'm either crazy or not.

nodiggity59
12-15-2005, 12:10 AM
Didn't turn out that bad??? Were you watching the White Sox from 2001-2004. (Emphasis on 2004). Did you note the biggest weakness of the team? That would have been the back end of our rotation, and those 2 could have provided a more than competent peformance. We may have won a division had we not made that trade.
Comparing it to Ritchie is a bit of hypebole on my part, but the comparison's there. They had similarly mediocre careers; in the Ritchie trade we traded 2 prospects and a middle reliever; here, we traded 1 prospect, a starter and a middle reliever.

When you find the quote where I said that Young is a can't miss prospect, let me know. I never said that. I said he's far and away our best prospect, gleaned from people who actually know about such things on this board. Prospects have value. I prefer not to fritter away the most valuable on mediocre veterans (and I judge him to be mediocre looking at stats re his recent performance, his AL performance and his playoff performance - I don't claim to be a scout).

You've made your position clear that trading top prospects for mediocre veterans is the way to build a baseball team. We'll just have to disagree philosophically on that one.

I do wonder what's going to happen when Pods, Dye, Thome, Buehrle, Garland, Conteras all have to be replaced (or given raises) within a 1-2 year period, with little support in the top minor leagues. Any ideas?'

Sure. KW will do exactly what he did when he assembled the 05 team: find undervalued guys from outside the organization. Look at our 05 squad. There are 4 Sox products: Thomas, Buerhle, Rowand, Crede. I have faith that KW can come up with guys like Marte, Uribe, Jenks, Cotts, etc. to supplement our team. Of our own draftess, the only one they were saving any $ on due to actually bringing him up is Buerhle, the others were making fair $.

Hendu
12-15-2005, 12:25 AM
I do wonder what's going to happen when Pods, Dye, Thome, Buehrle, Garland, Conteras all have to be replaced (or given raises) within a 1-2 year period, with little support in the top minor leagues. Any ideas?

1-2 years is a long time in baseball. This time last year, Brandon McCarthy was barely a blip on the radar screen, and Bobby Jenks was being claimed off waivers from the Angels.

While pitching wins chamionships, pitching depth wins divisions. Great move by KW.

FarWestChicago
12-15-2005, 12:25 AM
the reason Sox fans are so great is because they are able to have great baseball discussions about everything that happens to their beloved Black and White.Where is happening? It certainly isn't in this insane asylum. This is still a Dark Cloud, I've never accomplished **** in my life but I'm the greatest GM in baseball history nuthouse. :rolleyes:

KRS1
12-15-2005, 12:31 AM
Just an idea.....Garland/McCarthy, Anderson, (and possible prospects) for Baez and Crawford. The deal seems to make sense for both sides, as it would strengthen both teams where they need it most. Could be a $$$ issue, but the Sox may put up some cake for this one. Please tell me I'm either crazy or not.

I love how you decide to put the same terrible idea into two different threads, and then try to make sense of it in only one. Baez would be okay if we could get him for a nothing prospect, but he isnt all the Rays make him out to be, Bmac is not going anywhere despite the rumors you hear from so called experts.

Tragg
12-15-2005, 12:35 AM
'

Sure. KW will do exactly what he did when he assembled the 05 team: find undervalued guys from outside the organization. Look at our 05 squad. There are 4 Sox products: Thomas, Buerhle, Rowand, Crede. I have faith that KW can come up with guys like Marte, Uribe, Jenks, Cotts, etc. to supplement our team. Of our own draftess, the only one they were saving any $ on due to actually bringing him up is Buerhle, the others were making fair $.
That's deceptive though; because we got a lot of our players by using the farm system. Our farm system got us most of Vasquez, and hopefully that will turn out well.

But you're right - that's what we'll do; however, good thing we didn't need to fill with undervalued free agents this year.

Jjav829
12-15-2005, 12:38 AM
When you find the quote where I said that Young is a can't miss prospect, let me know. I never said that. I said he's far and away our best prospect, gleaned from people who actually know about such things on this board. Prospects have value. I prefer not to fritter away the most valuable on mediocre veterans (and I judge him to be mediocre looking at stats re his recent performance, his AL performance and his playoff performance - I don't claim to be a scout).

You claimed that Chris Young is, "our best prospect in ages."

You've made your position clear that trading top prospects for mediocre veterans is the way to build a baseball team. We'll just have to disagree philosophically on that one.

I never made that clear at all. That was never my point. My point is that you are whining and bitching about a prospect that you claim could be "our best prospect in ages," yet you haven't seen the guy take one swing or one step. So why are you so sure that he is "our best prospect in ages?"

I do wonder what's going to happen when Pods, Dye, Thome, Buehrle, Garland, Conteras all have to be replaced (or given raises) within a 1-2 year period, with little support in the top minor leagues. Any ideas?

Supposedly Jerry Owens will replace Pods. One of Garland or Contreras will be gone by next year, if not this year. We have no idea what will happen with Dye and Thome. Worst comes to worst, we can trade from our surplus of pitching to replace them. But that can be determined in the future. Perhaps we'll be major players in the free agent market when those guys contracts come off the books.

chisoxlove
12-15-2005, 12:42 AM
I love how you decide to put the same terrible idea into two different threads, and then try to make sense of it in only one. Baez would be okay if we could get him for a nothing prospect, but he isnt all the Rays make him out to be, Bmac is not going anywhere despite the rumors you hear from so called experts.

Those were my first (and second) posts on these boards, as you can clearly see. Hence, I sincerely apologize for the double-posting. Anyway, you haven't told me why the idea is terrible. Crawford fills the hole in center, bringing serious defense and speed. His contract isn't outrageous and he could be a staple for years to come. Baez fills the hole in the bullpen. Even if he isn't all that they make him out to be, we're not asking him to be our closer (or even our set-up guy), but just a tough, dependable reliever. While it'll cost some extra cash, it would be a bold move and could pay off big-time. Also, if not Mac, then what about Garland???

KRS1
12-15-2005, 12:51 AM
Those were my first (and second) posts on these boards, as you can clearly see. Hence, I sincerely apologize for the double-posting. Anyway, you haven't told me why the idea is terrible. Crawford fills the hole in center, bringing serious defense and speed. His contract isn't outrageous and he could be a staple for years to come. Baez fills the hole in the bullpen. Even if he isn't all that they make him out to be, we're not asking him to be our closer (or even our set-up guy), but just a tough, dependable reliever. While it'll cost some extra cash, it would be a bold move and could pay off big-time. Also, if not Mac, then what about Garland???

Crawford is a speed guy with a career OBP of .320, and until this year he hadnt broken 310, in other words for a fast guy he doesnt get on base much. I am a fan of Carls, dont get me wrong I know he's only 24 and has a lot of time left on his contract for little money, but for his production we could just plug in Owens into his spot in the order and expect the same results, for much less money. Baez is just about as overrated as a reliever comes and if he werent so 'available' last year we probably wouldnt even talk about him as a source for our BP woes. We dont need a Baez on our team, we can replace the production of Viz easily through our system, and will be looking for a lefty of higher value since Ozzie loves his matchups.

I also forgot that Carl called us, the fans and the org. bush league b/c he got his feelings hurt and didnt make the AS team, I dont want any part of him after that.

Tragg
12-15-2005, 12:52 AM
You claimed that Chris Young is, "our best prospect in ages."



[/quote=Jjav829] I did say that, but it doesn't mean "can't miss". It means what it says. A player with a ton of potential. In my opinion we know what V brings - to me, it's fifth starter quality performance. I'd rather have the player who could be great than the player we know will deliver as a 5th starter.



[/quote=Jjav829] Supposedly Jerry Owens will replace Pods. One of Garland or Contreras will be gone by next year, if not this year. We have no idea what will happen with Dye and Thome. Worst comes to worst, we can trade from our surplus of pitching to replace them. But that can be determined in the future. Perhaps we'll be major players in the free agent market when those guys contracts come off the books.
We can replace those players - the concern is that we will have to replace all of them within a short timeframe.

There you go - taking a prospect and pencilling him in as a replacement. Even I didn't do that with Young. I hope you're right because I worry about Pods the most - he really broke down last year it seemed to me. Further, he's the hardest to replace, because while not a great lead-off hitter, the only legit lead off hitter we've had since the great Tim Raines. So not only would Owens have to be a capable LF offensively and defensively, but he'd also have to hit lead-off (no easy task) or we could add lead-off to the list of needs.

Jjav829
12-15-2005, 01:02 AM
We can replace those players - the concern is that we will have to replace all of them within a short timeframe.

There you go - taking a prospect and pencilling him in as a replacement. Even I didn't do that with Young. I hope you're right because I worry about Pods the most - he really broke down last year it seemed to me. Further, he's the hardest to replace, because while not a great lead-off hitter, the only legit lead off hitter we've had since the great Tim Raines. So not only would Owens have to be a capable LF offensively and defensively, but he'd also have to hit lead-off (no easy task) or we could add lead-off to the list of needs.
Who knows if Owens is the answer. I certainly don't. I'm simply giving you a prospect that can replace one of our current players, seeing as how you seem to be worried that we don't have enough minor leaguers that can contribute in the future.

The bottom line is that KW has a plan. Neither of us knows what exactly it is, but he doesn't keep a 3-year chart for each position for nothing. KW already has answers as to what he wants to do as these player's contracts expire. Evidently KW found that Chris Young was expendable based on his plan.

As long as we have the pitching we have, we're in good shape. Do you realize how many teams would kill for the pitching staff we have? The A's are about the only other team in baseball that can claim this type of depth in their rotation. 20+ teams would probably have interest in Garland if KW decided to make him available. That depth can be used for anything. Maybe KW's plan is to trade Garland/Contreras to help replenish the farm system. Or maybe he will use Garland/Contreras to add a young, cheap player for the future (ie Crawford). I have no idea. I could throw out possibilities, but I'm not in KW's shoes. I don't know how he is thinking. But I'm confident that he has a plan and if he feels that plan means he can trade away "our best prospect in ages," Chris Young, then I trust him.

chisoxlove
12-15-2005, 01:07 AM
Crawford is a speed guy with a career OBP of .320, and until this year he hadnt broken 310, in other words for a fast guy he doesnt get on base much. I am a fan of Carls, dont get me wrong I know he's only 24 and has a lot of time left on his contract for little money, but for his production we could just plug in Owens into his spot in the order and expect the same results, for much less money. Baez is just about as overrated as a reliever comes and if he werent so 'available' last year we probably wouldnt even talk about him as a source for our BP woes. We dont need a Baez on our team, we can replace the production of Viz easily through our system, and will be looking for a lefty of higher value since Ozzie loves his matchups.

I think that you're selling Crawford short on what he can do. His OBP the last 2 years has been .331 & .331, which is not bad for a #2 hitter (which is where I believe the Sox would put him). In the past 2 years, he's stolen 105 bases and has scored more than 100 runs each year, not to mention his massive amount of triples. To say that his production would be matched by Owens in the upcoming year would be a reach at best.

As for Baez, a 2.86 ERA with 41 saves?? I know that those are only numbers, but you must admit that they are impressive. Again, to say we could bring somebody up that could do the same seems wrong. If we are so stacked in our farm system that we can easily (and cheaply) match the production of two former all-stars entering the prime of their careers, then this trade is terrible. However, we are not that stacked and this trade does make sense. If anything, I would think that the Rays may ask for more than what I was offering.

KRS1
12-15-2005, 01:20 AM
I think that you're selling Crawford short on what he can do. His OBP the last 2 years has been .331 & .331, which is not bad for a #2 hitter (which is where I believe the Sox would put him). In the past 2 years, he's stolen 105 bases and has scored more than 100 runs each year, not to mention his massive amount of triples. To say that his production would be matched by Owens in the upcoming year would be a reach at best.

As for Baez, a 2.86 ERA with 41 saves?? I know that those are only numbers, but you must admit that they are impressive. Again, to say we could bring somebody up that could do the same seems wrong. If we are so stacked in our farm system that we can easily (and cheaply) match the production of two former all-stars entering the prime of their careers, then this trade is terrible. However, we are not that stacked and this trade does make sense. If anything, I would think that the Rays may ask for more than what I was offering.

We dont need to bring up someone to get 40 saves, we need someone to fill in Vizcaino's role. I have no doubt we could find a cheaper and just as good elsewhere one a team that wont ask for a kings ransom in return. Baez is would be a great setup man, but we already have 2 of the best, Baez doesnt get very many k's for a supposed power closer and has not performed too well in the set-up role. Ill say this one more time we need a reliable righty and no more, and a good lefty who can get outs when we need him. Baez doesnt fill any need we currently have. I completely disagree with that last line, and Garland for Crawford with his current value is overpaying. We could find a decent number 2 hitter for far less than Jon and BA. I have a good feeling as I said before that if Jon goes we will be getting another young starter in return, as well as a prospect, so I'm kinda immune to all of these Tejada, Ichiro, Crawford talks.

chisoxlove
12-15-2005, 01:25 AM
We dont need to bring up someone to get 40 saves, we need someone to fill in Vizcaino's role. I have no doubt we could find a cheaper and just as good elsewhere one a team that wont ask for a kings ransom in return. Baez is would be a great setup man, but we already have 2 of the best, Baez doesnt get very many k's for a supposed power closer and has not performed too well in the set-up role. Ill say this one more time we need a reliable righty and no more, and a good lefty who can get outs when we need him. Baez doesnt fill any need we currently have. I completely disagree with that last line, and Garland for Crawford with his current value is overpaying. We could find a decent number 2 hitter for far less than Jon and BA. I have a good feeling as I said before that if Jon goes we will be getting another young starter in return, as well as a prospect, so I'm kinda immune to all of these Tejada, Ichiro, Crawford talks.

Agreed on the Baez front. He may be a bit MORE than what we need; You're totally right. As for Crawford, I still feel that he would be a great fit, altough pricey (in what we'd have to give up). He could lead off if Pods has problems and will allow Iguchi to hit in his more natural, comfortable spot lower in the order. I hope it's not a pitcher-for-prospects deal, because we really need to go for the throat again this year!!!

KRS1
12-15-2005, 01:31 AM
Agreed on the Baez front. He may be a bit MORE than what we need; You're totally right. As for Crawford, I still feel that he would be a great fit, altough pricey (in what we'd have to give up). He could lead off if Pods has problems and will allow Iguchi to hit in his more natural, comfortable spot lower in the order. I hope it's not a pitcher-for-prospects deal, because we really need to go for the throat again this year!!!

I think KW wants to have 6 guys he can go to in any situation so getting a young guy who has est. himself as a quality arm(a lefty preferably) would be the smart way to go and undoubtedly Jon would be a #2 guy on just about any team we trade him to, so we could get another very good young arm for him that could be projected into our roto some time in the next 2-3 seasons. This is th elast time I'm gonna say this I promise, I soooooooooooooo, have a ****-on for Lowry and would love to see him as our second bullpen lefty and spot starter.

voodoochile
12-15-2005, 01:46 AM
There is really onlu one thing that bothers me about this trade, and that is that Javier Vasquez STINKS!!! He is not up to snuff like the rest of our stuff and he WILL complain about every bad outing (excuses, etc...). El Duke is clearly near the end of his career, but his clubhouse presence alone makes him a better fit for the Sox.

I count NINE men out:

Rowand
Thomas
Everett
Blum
Harris (likely gone)
Timo (likely gone)
El Duke
Vizcaino
Marte

Thsts like over 30% of the team from last year. Is anyone else concerened about this ???

No, because of the players you have mentioned, only 3 of them were heavily relied on by the end of last season (Rowand, Everett and El Duque). Yes, Blum, Viz and even Marte had a moment or two in the playoffs, but most of these players were bit pieces, played little role due to injury or were just expected to be gone because there are better baseball players to replace them with.

I don't think anyone is questioning Mackowiak or Thome's heart. Both of these guys are known as good clubhouse guys who play the game with passion and are willing to do anything to win.

McCarthy was expected to replace Hernandez in the rotation this season anyway and he still can if Vazquez proves an idiot or just can't cut the mustard (both of which I highly doubt).

Anyone who doesn't want to play for the Sox right now is stupid and would only ruin the rest of their year to trash this opportunity by acting selfishly. Not saying it won't happen, but every player in MLB wants to win a championship and right now the Sox are the place to be for that opportunity.

Frater Perdurabo
12-15-2005, 09:33 AM
If Kenny could flip Vazquez or Contreras (plus something else) to the Devil Rays for Carl Crawford, I'd be very happy, because Carl Crawford now represents what I would envision from a fully-developed Chris Young (perhaps with Crawford having less power but a higher average), and Crawford is on a realtively inexpensive contract right now ($625,000 in 2005).

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 10:35 AM
I'm responding to you because I respect your opinion; not that I'm ragging.

It depends on how they do the accounting. Do they recognize the entire amount that Az gave them THIS year, or do they amortize it over the remaining contract years. I'm less concerned with how they report it, than I am with how they view it internally regarding their own budget. For example, if the Sox internally look at our budget as Vasquez salary minus the whole amount, then the poster's point above is valid. And they may look at it that way and figure, hey, well cut something else next year.

If he made the trade to flip, why the rush? I seriously doubt anyone would give Az what Kenny Williams did for this level of ballplayer. Why not wait until you have the deal to flip and do them together, or one right after the other?

We're taking a Yankees approach without their payroll. Because in 2-3 years, not only is our staff up for big raises, but Dye and Pods will be pretty worn out. We know the minor league pitchers aren't anywhere close, but by keeping our young outfielders, it's safe bet that one will pan out to ease the payroll burden. Well, we just traded far and away our best prospect. So we'll need 3-4 starters plus 2 outfielders in the next 3 years.

So not only do we not help ourselves this year, we also hurt ourselves in the future. That, plus, Vasquez' peformance has been less than stellar, makes me really not like this trade. Just my opinion.Vazquez costs the Sox $19M over the next two seasons. Garland turned down a 3/$21M deal, and he is obviously looking for a big payday after 2006 (not that I blame him one bit). I doubt very much they could sign him to less than 4/$40M now. Even if he goes to arb this year and they sign him after 2006, he'll get about $7M in arb but he'll probably be looking at even bigger numbers after the season. Either way, net to the White Sox, Garland will be more expensive.

They're not going to flip Vazquez. I think it's a foregone conclusion that Garland will be traded. Personally, I like Vazquez better than Garland. Even rating them even, the exchange of Garland for Vazquez is a wash and it becomes Chris Young plus assorted spare parts for ???? We need to see what Kenny gets for Garland, but his trade value is sky high right now. Look at the type of players that have been talked about. You could never anticipate getting those kind of guys for Young/Hernandez/Vizcaino in a straight trade.

WSox8404
12-15-2005, 10:37 AM
Well now that I am back from being banned :redface: I can finally speak my mind. This deal was great IMO. Yes we had 6 solid starters when El Duque was here. But there were no guarentees with him. He will probably be injured at least once next year and who needs that. So now we have 6 healthy pitchers. Thats right 6. We only need 5. How many teams are desperate for pitching right now. A ton. We can use either of three pitchers as trade bait now. Garland, Contreras, or Vasquez thus making out team even better. I don't know what some peoples gripes are about this trade. Take Vasquez's ERA from last year 4.42 or something. That is good number 4 or 5 material. Most teams do not even have one starter below 4.00. He has electric stuff and might turn it aound with Coop. If we still had El Duque and wanted to deal a pitcher and it didn't turn out to be him, we would be stuck with El Duque as our number 5 and a chance he would be hurt for a large part of next year. So all in all Kenny pulled off another good trade.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 10:48 AM
My reluctance to endorse this trade has less to do with Chris Young and more to do with my perception that his absence, plus Vasquez's contract, could make it less likely the Sox can afford to re-sign Jon Garland and Mark Buehrle when each reaches free agency.

Fielding a cheap, young, productive, home-grown outfield gives the Sox more payroll flexibility to retain Garland and Buehrle.



IMO that decision that he couldn't retain both Garland & Buehrle was made for Kenny when Jon rejected the extension. By all accounts, it seems like retaining Jon was going to require giving him either the best or close to the best offer available on the market, i.e. $11-12M/yr (conservatively). For 2007, that's $2-3M more than they're paying Vazquez (and if you believe the Daily Herald article citing his cost at $14M/2yrs, it's $4-5M in savings). That's money that can go straight to Buehrle in an extension.

'07 OF is probably Owens-Anderson-Dye, whereas before it was probably Pods-Young-Anderson. The 2d OF is about $3M cheaper, which coincidentally is about the savings on Vazquez over Garland.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 11:17 AM
FWIW, here's the quote from the Daily Herald on the $$$ included with Vazquez:

dailyherald]

Vazquez is owed $24 million over the next two seasons, with the New York Yankees on the hook for $6 million. Last winter, the Yankees sent Vazquez to the Diamondbacks in the trade that brought Randy Johnson to New York. Arizona is picking up $4 million of Vazquez’s remaining salary, so the White Sox have to pay the right-handed pitcher a reasonable $14 million for 2006-07.

That contradicts most of the other reports, but if in fact we got Vazquez at $7M/yr, that's an absolute steal.

kevin57
12-15-2005, 11:31 AM
I was liking this trade as well as the other KW off-season moves. Today, though, Mariotti is praising "Ken" (no longer "Kenny" in his opinion). That idiot is always wrong...which now has me worried.

tebman
12-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Where is happening? It certainly isn't in this insane asylum. This is still a Dark Cloud, I've never accomplished **** in my life but I'm the greatest GM in baseball history nuthouse. :rolleyes:
:rolling: I think I've seen that guy!

http://www.drtandem.com/images/cliffy.jpg
"Now here's what the Sox need to do..."

Paulwny
12-15-2005, 11:35 AM
FWIW, here's the quote from the Daily Herald on the $$$ included with Vazquez:



That contradicts most of the other reports, but if in fact we got Vazquez at $7M/yr, that's an absolute steal.

Agree, an absolute steal for a starter, now hopefully Ozzie/Cooper can straighten out Vazquez's head.

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 11:54 AM
FWIW, here's the quote from the Daily Herald on the $$$ included with Vazquez:



That contradicts most of the other reports, but if in fact we got Vazquez at $7M/yr, that's an absolute steal.I think there's some double counting here. The Yankees sent AZ money to pay part of Vazquez' contract. That amounts to $3M per year. Arizona at first wanted to keep all that money, but they eventually settled on sending $5M to the Sox, keeping $1M of it. I'm pretty sure they did not send $5M in addition to the $6M from the Yankees.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 12:06 PM
FWIW, here's the quote from the Daily Herald on the $$$ included with Vazquez:



That contradicts most of the other reports, but if in fact we got Vazquez at $7M/yr, that's an absolute steal.

If that is true, then I can live with Chris Young being part of the deal, getting 10 million of the remaining 24 million guaranteed money paid by the D'Backs. Would liek to see some more formal reports of this to confirm, but that makes more sense.

nodiggity59
12-15-2005, 12:07 PM
If that is true, then I can live with Chris Young being part of the deal, getting 10 million of the remaining 24 million guaranteed money paid by the D'Backs. Would liek to see some more formal reports of this to confirm, but that makes more sense.

Agreed. The deal hasn't even been finalized yet, I believe, so I'll be very interested to see what comes of this.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 12:09 PM
I think there's some double counting here. The Yankees sent AZ money to pay part of Vazquez' contract. That amounts to $3M per year. Arizona at first wanted to keep all that money, but they eventually settled on sending $5M to the Sox, keeping $1M of it. I'm pretty sure they did not send $5M in addition to the $6M from the Yankees.

huh? There have been about 10 different numbers thrown around, so we'll see when the deal becomes official following physicals. The Yankees money is most likely amortized. El Duque + Vizcaino = about 6-7 million in 2006 as well.

voodoochile
12-15-2005, 12:12 PM
If that is true, then I can live with Chris Young being part of the deal, getting 10 million of the remaining 24 million guaranteed money paid by the D'Backs. Would liek to see some more formal reports of this to confirm, but that makes more sense.

I think Ol No. 2 is correct. It's only $5M not $10M, but I have also read reports that it is $7M. We may never know.

Like it or not, Chris Young pretty much WAS the deal. El Duque is pretty done. He will be lucky to put up 15 starts a year in the future. Viz is simply a releiver. You don't trade starters for releivers, ever.

Young is probably the main part of the trade from a DBacks perspective, especially if his value as a prospect is as high as people think it is. The rest was simply to balance the money. Remember, they also got back Duque's $5M due this year, so some of that money is a wash. Net salary increase is only around $4M/year even if they only got the $5M and MUCH lower if they got the higher numbers being thrown around.

I understand Young is well liked by those of you who follow the prospects and certainly your evaluation of his talent level weighs in more heavily than some of the others, but all things considered even at the lower cash levels, the Sox did fine in this trade.

TheOldRoman
12-15-2005, 12:14 PM
I was liking this trade as well as the other KW off-season moves. Today, though, Mariotti is praising "Ken" (no longer "Kenny" in his opinion). That idiot is always wrong...which now has me worried.
No, he is not always wrong. He is a windsock. He changes his stance every other day to whatever is popular. He trashed the Sox all season, only to say that he told us all along after we won it all.
:windsock:
Think of it this way. Even a dead watch is correct twice a day.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 01:52 PM
FWIW, a bit o'love from BP for KW on the deal, from their chat at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=159 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=159)

Jonah Keri[/B]: Why don't more teams look for trades rather than deciding that throwing a mint at a player is the only way to go? The A's and White Sox have both done very well for themselves in picking up Bradley, Perez and Vazquez at a discount, and neither team has to sweat Years 3 through 6 of a giant, long-term contract.


R.J. (D.C.): Do you think the White Sox gave up too much in the Vazquez deal? I know Chris Young is no certainty, but I'd say it's better to have choices in CF next year than not. Plus, does a team with five solid starters need Vazquez anyway?
Jonah Keri: I always like to replace "a team with X solid starters" with the equation X-2. So if the Sox believed they had 5 solid starters, injury, attrition and the general unpredictability of pitchers would dictate they had 3. So to me adding a quality arm like Vazquez makes sense.

Young's a pretty good prospect on a team that may have problems with no-power Podsednik, the unpredictable Dye and the unproven (but talented) Brian Anderson out there. But I still think the Sox did well for themselves, especially with Arizona tossing in a reported $3 million to boot.


endymion853 (Wi): When you consider Kenny Williams and the White Sox... If you have a chance to win next year, do you trade young talent to win the Series? It seems to be the anti-BP approach. Trade young talent to build your team in order for the short term. With an aging Thome and Konerko around for a while, it seems like the Sox could crash like the Yankees in 2-3 years.
Jonah Keri: First of all, what young talent did the Sox trade to load up for 2006? I'm not that big a Rowand fan (and Thome came with much of his freight paid). Young's OK but he's not a blue chipper. Williams has upgraded his team *without* sacrificing the future by giving up a stud like McCarthy. Yes they'll need to draft and develop well to see sustained success, but you can say that about any team.

And there is no "BP approach". Building a winning team is still what it's all about, and there are a lot of ways to do it. You'd be hard pressed to find such a disparate group of styles as the Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox and White Sox of the last 5 years. They all deserve kudos.

And Buster Olney has a column titled "In Kenny we trust" on ESPN.com. Looks like our man is finally getting some long-overdue recognition.

TheOldRoman
12-15-2005, 02:03 PM
And Buster Olney has a column titled "In Kenny we trust" on ESPN.com. Looks like our man is finally getting some long-overdue recognition.
Looks like people are reading my sig!*

*since July 31,2005

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 02:07 PM
FWIW, a bit o'love from BP for KW on the deal, from their chat at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=159 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=159)







And Buster Olney has a column titled "In Kenny we trust" on ESPN.com. Looks like our man is finally getting some long-overdue recognition.How long before BP starts talking about their new statistical gibberish that predicted the White Sox would win the World Series?:rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
12-15-2005, 02:30 PM
No.2:

You mean BP finally allowed them to statistically win the Central?? LOL

Lip

Randar68
12-15-2005, 02:39 PM
BP: "Young's OK but he's not a blue chipper."

BWAAAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for reinforcing my reasons to totally ignore BP. What a bunch of dumbasses.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 02:52 PM
And Buster Olney has a column titled "In Kenny we trust" on ESPN.com. Looks like our man is finally getting some long-overdue recognition.

OK, no one took my bait. Any of the local "ESPN Insiders" care to share the tidbits Buster has on our most favored GM?

Jjav829
12-15-2005, 05:01 PM
OK, no one took my bait. Any of the local "ESPN Insiders" care to share the tidbits Buster has on our most favored GM?
Olney basically just makes the case that Kenny deserves to have his instincts trusted. He says that KW isn't afraid to take risks, even when the moves don't always appear to make sense. Olney says, "But sometime this winter, Williams will submit his ring size, as he and the other members of the Chicago organization prepare to receive the diamond-studded spoils of their championship season. Theo Epstein, Larry Beinfest, Bill Stoneman, Brian Cashman, John Schuerholz, Dave Dombrowski and Pat Gillick are the only other current general managers who won rings as GMs. In other words, Williams has earned the right to have his gut instincts trusted. He thinks Thome is a good gamble? OK, we buy that.

......

A trade of either [Garland or Contreras] would be a bit of a shock. This would be another case of Williams trusting his instincts, as he did when he signed A.J. Pierzynski and Jermaine Dye, and traded for Scott Podsednik and Freddy Garcia and Contreras.

And his instincts have been pretty good, so far.

nodiggity59
12-15-2005, 05:11 PM
BWAAAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for reinforcing my reasons to totally ignore BP. What a bunch of dumbasses.

I'll put you on the spot, if you don't mind.

Chris Young = Corey Patterson, Mike Cameron, or franchise player?

Randar68
12-15-2005, 05:27 PM
I'll put you on the spot, if you don't mind.

Chris Young = Corey Patterson, Mike Cameron, or franchise player?

I don't want to compare him to a current player. He's got .280-40-120 potential in CF and even though he strikes out a bunch, he'll walk 50-75 times a year. Compare him to whomever you'd like. Will he make enough consistent contact to reach that potential? I think he will, but it is the question that remains unanswered. Could be Arizona's opening day CF'er.

voodoochile
12-15-2005, 05:50 PM
I don't want to compare him to a current player. He's got .280-40-120 potential in CF and even though he strikes out a bunch, he'll walk 50-75 times a year. Compare him to whomever you'd like. Will he make enough consistent contact to reach that potential? I think he will, but it is the question that remains unanswered. Could be Arizona's opening day CF'er.

You're saying the Sox just traded potentially the next Ken Griffey Jr.?

Jerome
12-15-2005, 06:05 PM
Ken Rosenthal's take on 'the trade,' and the Sox off season. He thinks Williams isn't done yet...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730 (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5167730)

Lip


Yes, but where can we get Dayn's opinion on the trade?

[Dayn Perry]Kenny Williams is an idiot. Instead of giving up Young, one of their best prospects, he should have traded Scot Podsednik, who, statistically, is vastly overrated.[/Dayn Perry]

longshot7
12-15-2005, 06:05 PM
How long before BP starts talking about their new statistical gibberish that predicted the White Sox would win the World Series?:rolleyes:

I believe they did exactly that about two weeks after the Series, showing how the Sox win proved all their theses about stats.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 06:13 PM
You're saying the Sox just traded potentially the next Ken Griffey Jr.?

I don't think he will hit for the same average and I don't know that he makes consistent enough contact to hit 50-60 HR's as Griffey did. He also is a tad below Griffey(in his prime/healthier days) defensively.

Soriano with a willingness to take a walk? Soriano has been the one I've most compared him to, but while they both K their fair share, I think Young's willingness to take more frequent walks and being a plus defender are differences to note as well.

That said, I also think Anderson will hit .280-20-75 this year. :-)

voodoochile
12-15-2005, 06:18 PM
I don't think he will hit for the same average and I don't know that he makes consistent enough contact to hit 50-60 HR's as Griffey did. He also is a tad below Griffey(in his prime/healthier days) defensively.

Soriano with a willingness to take a walk? Soriano has been the one I've most compared him to, but while they both K their fair share, I think Young's willingness to take more frequent walks and being a plus defender are differences to note as well.

That said, I also think Anderson will hit .280-20-75 this year. :-)

What's Anderson's upside in your opinion?

If that is what he does his rookie season, .300 - 30 - 100 should be within his reach when he hits his prime, correct?

Randar68
12-15-2005, 06:26 PM
What's Anderson's upside in your opinion?

If that is what he does his rookie season, .300 - 30 - 100 should be within his reach when he hits his prime, correct?

Yep. I think in USCF he could hit 30+ HR's. Daver thinks he projects as more of a 25 HR guy IIRC. I think he's a guy who plays invaluable defense and could legitimately hit over .300 on a regular basis in his prime. Again, kid adjusts so quickly, is very coachable, and he's talented as all hell. Tough to beat the combination of talent and attitude, although there are certainly quite a few guys with better overall talent. Hell, Corey Patterson with Brian Anderson's work ethic and attitude would be a perennial All-Star.

Daver
12-15-2005, 06:34 PM
Yep. I think in USCF he could hit 30+ HR's. Daver thinks he projects as more of a 25 HR guy IIRC. I think he's a guy who plays invaluable defense and could legitimately hit over .300 on a regular basis in his prime. Again, kid adjusts so quickly, is very coachable, and he's talented as all hell. Tough to beat the combination of talent and attitude, although there are certainly quite a few guys with better overall talent. Hell, Corey Patterson with Brian Anderson's work ethic and attitude would be a perennial All-Star.

Actually it was less than twenty, but the way the ball is coming off the bat with the new roof at Comiskey, 30 might be closer. He doesn't have a power hitters swing, but he does have good timing. Griffey Jr. has perhaps the best power hitters swing I have personally seen.

He's Not a Blum
12-15-2005, 06:45 PM
I would be highly surprised if Young doesn't turn out to be very good from everything I've read and heard. However, if Coop can reign in Vazquez like he did Contreras, we're getting a guy who could a perennially win 16-18 games.

ShoelessJoeS
12-15-2005, 06:49 PM
I would be highly surprised if Young doesn't turn out to be very good from everything I've read and heard. However, if Coop can reign in Vazquez like he did Contreras, we're getting a guy who could a perennially win 16-18 games.
I think Vasquez' upside is larger than Contreras'. With the type of power pitcher he is, I think we might be witnessing JV's first 20 win season next year!

nedlug
12-15-2005, 06:50 PM
Where is happening? It certainly isn't in this insane asylum. This is still a Dark Cloud, I've never accomplished **** in my life but I'm the greatest GM in baseball history nuthouse. :rolleyes:

Haha... in some ways, you're right, but look at alot of the other sites out there, and you'll see a whole lot of dumber opinions that don't get automatically torn down like they do here.

Just look back at this thread - we've analyzed every little part of this trade, and you can almost see the middle ground developing, painted by the "we won't know for a little bit - it could go either way" posts. Sure, there's people who have too little information going on about stuff on here, but at least they have the info (unlike, again, some of the other sites I have perused for trade discussions, etc.).

Frater Perdurabo
12-15-2005, 07:42 PM
:tomatoaward: :tomatoaward: :tomatoaward: :tomatoaward: :tomatoaward: :tomatoaward: :tomatoaward: