PDA

View Full Version : Garland for prospects?


Domeshot17
12-15-2005, 02:56 PM
Espn Insider Rumor Mill has a report from today's Herald that Kenny would deal Garland, but the asking price is not a mega deal like we thought, but 2 top prospects. Interesting spin since we have mostly been drooling (or steaming) over Tejada, Wilkerson Blaylock etc.

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 03:02 PM
Espn Insider Rumor Mill has a report from today's Herald that Kenny would deal Garland, but the asking price is not a mega deal like we thought, but 2 top prospects. Interesting spin since we have mostly been drooling (or steaming) over Tejada, Wilkerson Blaylock etc.Could happen, but it would have to be two very good prospects. Or maybe a top reliever and one good prospect. Garland's value is sky-high right now. Kenny can almost name his price.

Paulwny
12-15-2005, 03:05 PM
Could happen, but it would have to be two very good prospects. Or maybe a top reliever and one good prospect. Garland's value is sky-high right now. Kenny can almost name his price.

With the possible exception of the yankmees, no team is giving up a front line player for a 1 yr rent-a-player unless they can sign him to a new contract.

Mr. White Sox
12-15-2005, 03:12 PM
With the possible exception of the yankmees, no team is giving up a front line player for a 1 yr rent-a-player unless they can sign him to a new contract.

:lynch&mcfail
"Yep! No, seriously, he's right."

MERPER
12-15-2005, 03:12 PM
Since when are 2 top-level pitching prospects considered bad? Pitching is still at a premium, which is why Kenny loaded up 6 starters and why Burnett got $11 mill per year as a sub-500 pitcher....

If even 1 of the 2 pitching prospects pans out to go with McCarthy, Buehrle and (hopefully) Broadway or Liotta our future rotation could be great...

2 legit starting pitching prospects is really a lot to be asking for... slightly behind an elite position player in my opinion!!!

KW holds all the cards here and I have confidence he will make a trade that he feels gets good value in return and strengthens the team for years to come...

White Sox dynasty sounds really good... it rolls off the tongue! :supernana: :supernana:

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 03:17 PM
With the possible exception of the yankmees, no team is giving up a front line player for a 1 yr rent-a-player unless they can sign him to a new contract.Teams do it every year. The temptation to WIN NOW is strong and there aren't many good alternatives if a team needs pitching. Besides, I think a team that's so inclined could probably sign him at around 3/$30M. Conditional deals are not uncommon.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 03:20 PM
Teams do it every year. The temptation to WIN NOW is strong and there aren't many good alternatives if a team needs pitching. Besides, I think a team that's so inclined could probably sign him at around 3/$30M. Conditional deals are not uncommon.

There's a strong reason why guys like AJ Burnett are setting records for the combo fo salary & cotract length. It's not because he's all that good, just that he IS all that good when compared to the rest of the available talent.

Garland is as good or better than anyone on the market, and if you give him a 4-$44 type of deal, he'll come at or below market rate for a guy who's only 26. That'll have significant value. The Sox issue is that they have Buehrle & Garcia coming up, and probably can't afford Jon at that rate plus those guys.

Paulwny
12-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Teams do it every year. The temptation to WIN NOW is strong and there aren't many good alternatives if a team needs pitching. Besides, I think a team that's so inclined could probably sign him at around 3/$30M. Conditional deals are not uncommon.

I somewhat agree, however GM's realize that KW has to trade Garland or lose him at the end of the season with no return. I just don't believe Garland will sign any deals, he'll test the market, thereby lessening his value right now.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Espn Insider Rumor Mill has a report from today's Herald that Kenny would deal Garland, but the asking price is not a mega deal like we thought, but 2 top prospects. Interesting spin since we have mostly been drooling (or steaming) over Tejada, Wilkerson Blaylock etc.

One possibility with the Orioles is something involving Adam Loewen, but their other pitching prospects are a ways away or are serious unknowns at this point. To get 2 top pitching prospects from them would basically be getting BOTH of their pitching prospects... pretty thin system.

There are better suitors out there, IMO, although Loewen is tempting. Anaheim would be good for eveyone involved. They have a plethora of talent to deal.

The Deacon
12-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Espn Insider Rumor Mill has a report from today's Herald that Kenny would deal Garland, but the asking price is not a mega deal like we thought, but 2 top prospects. Interesting spin since we have mostly been drooling (or steaming) over Tejada, Wilkerson Blaylock etc.

If this is true, I'd rather trade him at the 2006 deadline and keep him as insurance. We might as well get 4 solid months out of him first.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 03:25 PM
I somewhat agree, however GM's realize that KW has to trade Garland or lose him at the end of the season with no return. I just don't believe Garland will sign any deals, he'll test the market, thereby lessening his value right now.

So then wait and trade him to a NL team in-season that is looking to contend. St. Louis, LA, Mets, who cares?

Vasquez demanded a trade and makes more money than Garland will in raw salary, yet the Sox had to give up their #1 prospect. Garland is VERY young, and JUST won 18 games and a World Series... Value is high, extension or not.

Anyone he walks away from after 2006 will get 2 top-50 draft picks for him.

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 03:32 PM
So then wait and trade him to a NL team in-season that is looking to contend. St. Louis, LA, Mets, who cares?

Vasquez demanded a trade and makes more money than Garland will in raw salary, yet the Sox had to give up their #1 prospect. Garland is VERY young, and JUST won 18 games and a World Series... Value is high, extension or not.

Anyone he walks away from after 2006 will get 2 top-50 draft picks for him.I will be flabbergasted if Garland is in a Sox uniform when ST starts. There are plenty of teams that will want him. Teams thought they could wait out Freddy Garcia - how'd that work out? You snooze - you lose. If a team wants him, they'd better step up with a deal or they're going to be stuck dealing with Boras for Millwood, Weaver or Washburn. That's reason enough to make a deal.

Paulwny
12-15-2005, 03:34 PM
So then wait and trade him to a NL team in-season that is looking to contend. St. Louis, LA, Mets, who cares?

Vasquez demanded a trade and makes more money than Garland will in raw salary, yet the Sox had to give up their #1 prospect. Garland is VERY young, and JUST won 18 games and a World Series... Value is high, extension or not.

Anyone he walks away from after 2006 will get 2 top-50 draft picks for him.

The big difference between Garland and Vazquez , Vazquaz is not a 1 yr rent-a-player. The sox had to give up a #1 prospect. I'm sorry but I don't think Garland's value is that high. The sox were in the same situation with Durham when he was in his last yr.

ilsox7
12-15-2005, 03:36 PM
The big difference between Garland and Vazquez , Vazquaz is not a 1 yr rent-a-player. The sox had to give up a #1 prospect. I'm sorry but I don't think Garland's value is that high. The sox were in the same situation with Durham when he was in his last yr.

Uh, an 18 game winner with an ERA less than 4? And also the opportunity at first dibs to re-sign him? And he's young? And durable? Yea, he's worth a lot.

maurice
12-15-2005, 03:37 PM
Lots of teams put in big bids for < 1/2 year of Burnett. They'll offer at least as much for a full year of Garland.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 03:37 PM
The big difference between Garland and Vazquez , Vazquaz is not a 1 yr rent-a-player. The sox had to give up a #1 prospect. I'm sorry but I don't think Garland's value is that high. The sox were in the same situation with Durham when he was in his last yr.

You're equating an aging, declining Durham, traded with about a month left in the season and at a time when there were no compensation picks for FAs with a 26-yr old starting pitcher coming off of a dominant season and a more dominant postseason?

:?:

Randar68
12-15-2005, 03:37 PM
The big difference between Garland and Vazquez , Vazquaz is not a 1 yr rent-a-player. The sox had to give up a #1 prospect. I'm sorry but I don't think Garland's value is that high. The sox were in the same situation with Durham when he was in his last yr.

Garland just won 18 games.

Vasquez just completed 2 mediocre seasons in a row and is a career <.500 pitcher.

A contending team wouldn't prefer Garland for 1 year with the possibility of extension ove signing Weaver, Washburn or Millwood to 4+ year deal? Ummmm, ok.

Nevermind the fact that while they'd be giving up top prospects, they'd also be getting 2 top draft picks if they fail to sign him beyond 2006.

Durham????? Paul, put down the crack pipe. Durham was dealt because at the time, compensation draft picks were being removed from the collective bargaining agreement and the Sox were going to receive NOTHING in return in the near future. 2 months later, they halted the plans to do such with the compensation draft picks. Totally irrelevant comparing that to a 26-year old 18 game winner uner contract for 2006.

Hell, you're claiming Vasquez isn't a rent-a-player, and he's only signed for one more season than Garland is...

Color me confused, you're not making any sense today.

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 03:39 PM
The big difference between Garland and Vazquez , Vazquaz is not a 1 yr rent-a-player. The sox had to give up a #1 prospect. I'm sorry but I don't think Garland's value is that high. The sox were in the same situation with Durham when he was in his last yr.Value is a relative thing. When the alternatives are dealing with Boras for Millwood, Washburn or Weaver, Garland's value goes up. And if they can make it conditional on his agreeing to a contract (something I think he'll do if the money's right), it's no longer a 1-year rental.

Paulwny
12-15-2005, 03:45 PM
Maybe you guys are correct, but I still have my doubts about his value because he'll be a fa at the end of the season. We'll see, hopefully KW can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Paulwny
12-15-2005, 03:48 PM
xColor me confused, you're not making any sense today.

You mean there have been days that I actually made sense ? :D:

caulfield12
12-15-2005, 03:59 PM
So then wait and trade him to a NL team in-season that is looking to contend. St. Louis, LA, Mets, who cares?

Vasquez demanded a trade and makes more money than Garland will in raw salary, yet the Sox had to give up their #1 prospect. Garland is VERY young, and JUST won 18 games and a World Series... Value is high, extension or not.

Anyone he walks away from after 2006 will get 2 top-50 draft picks for him.

Yeah, but many are forgetting we are also eviscerating somewhere in the vicinity of $6.5 million from the payroll earmarked for what were perceived to be two of our most untradeable players, El Duque and Vizcaino.

If the deal was simply Garland for Vazquez, there would have been no Chris Young involved. The same thing happened with Gio and Haigwood for Thome.

In both situations, the White Sox valued something in the vicinity of $18.5 million dollars over keeping those three players. And they shed Rowands salary as well, which was another positive for the payroll. Not to mention the additional $5 million we are getting to subsidize Vazquezs salary. So that is essentially $23 million for two of our top prospects and Haigwood. That is getting good value. Same thing happened with the second Everett deal...KW got the money for Everetts deal back and gave them a package of Francisco, Rupe and Webster instead of paying for Carl.

The White Sox probably would have only received $11-13 instead of $21 million for Thome from the Phillies IMO...

Randar68
12-15-2005, 04:04 PM
Yeah, but many are forgetting we are also eviscerating somewhere in the vicinity of $6.5 million from the payroll earmarked for what were perceived to be two of our most untradeable players, El Duque and Vizcaino.

I don't think anyone is discounting the monetary aspect of either this or the Thome deal. Over the past 3-4 years, the amount of contract picked up or taken-on by the original team is directly related to the quality and number of prospects received.

caulfield12
12-15-2005, 04:06 PM
Garland just won 18 games.

Vasquez just completed 2 mediocre seasons in a row and is a career <.500 pitcher.

A contending team wouldn't prefer Garland for 1 year with the possibility of extension ove signing Weaver, Washburn or Millwood to 4+ year deal? Ummmm, ok.

Nevermind the fact that while they'd be giving up top prospects, they'd also be getting 2 top draft picks if they fail to sign him beyond 2006.

Durham????? Paul, put down the crack pipe. Durham was dealt because at the time, compensation draft picks were being removed from the collective bargaining agreement and the Sox were going to receive NOTHING in return in the near future. 2 months later, they halted the plans to do such with the compensation draft picks. Totally irrelevant comparing that to a 26-year old 18 game winner uner contract for 2006.

Hell, you're claiming Vasquez isn't a rent-a-player, and he's only signed for one more season than Garland is...

Color me confused, you're not making any sense today.

The White Sox still have control of Vazquez for the 2008 season because he exercised his right to a trade in the middle of this particular multi-year contract. Essentially, they can offer him arbitration or give him another contract, but he is Sox property in 2008 if they still want him. Which makes this deal even more logical for the Sox...it gives them McCarthy and Vazquez for sure, probably Garcia OR Buehrle and then there is also Cotts, Broadway, Liotta, Lumsden, etc.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-15-2005, 04:07 PM
With the possible exception of the yankmees, no team is giving up a front line player for a 1 yr rent-a-player unless they can sign him to a new contract.

The Angels would. They can use him and Darin Erstad is available yet again. Will the Garland for Erstad trade happen AGAIN? This time the Angels may have to give up prospects. And chances are, the Angels will give him a 5 year $50 million offer and Garland will happily accept it.

Ol' No. 2
12-15-2005, 04:11 PM
The Angels would. They can use him and Darin Erstad is available yet again. Will the Garland for Erstad trade happen AGAIN? This time the Angels may have to give up prospects. And chances are, the Angels will give him a 5 year $50 million offer and Garland will happily accept it.If we throw in a prospect, can we get them to keep Erstad?:redneck

KRS1
12-15-2005, 04:14 PM
If we throw in a prospect, can we get them to keep Erstad?:redneck

My feelings exactly, if we are looking westward for a trade root think SF or LAD, certainly not an AL team that gave us some trouble in the past.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 04:24 PM
My feelings exactly, if we are looking westward for a trade root think SF or LAD, certainly not an AL team that gave us some trouble in the past.

Anaheim has a ton of minor league talent, though. If we're looking for prospects, they'd be one of the top 5 teams to start talking to IMO.

KyWhiSoxFan
12-15-2005, 04:33 PM
The Angels would. They can use him and Darin Erstad is available yet again. Will the Garland for Erstad trade happen AGAIN? This time the Angels may have to give up prospects. And chances are, the Angels will give him a 5 year $50 million offer and Garland will happily accept it.

I don't think we need three first basemen (I'm not a fan of putting Erstad in center). But the Angels do have a lot of very good prospects worth looking at.

Garland is a very valuable commodity in today's market, and if we did trade him I would hold out for a starting position player and someone's best pitching prospect. If they don't want to do that deal, fine, we'll keep him.

Flight #24
12-15-2005, 04:35 PM
Anaheim has a ton of minor league talent, though. If we're looking for prospects, they'd be one of the top 5 teams to start talking to IMO.

Aren't they mostly position players though? Wood, Kotchman, Morales, MacPherson. What pitching prospects do they have besides Jared Weaver and Ervin Santana?

mrwag
12-15-2005, 04:35 PM
Uh, an 18 game winner with an ERA less than 4? And also the opportunity at first dibs to re-sign him? And he's young? And durable? Yea, he's worth a lot.

Can someone please inform me why the Sox are supposedly trying to get rid of him? I think I'd rather have JG than Contreras. We just won the World Series. Let's not overhaul the entire team this offseason.

Flame away at me if you'd like, but I waited 25 years for this. I understand a tweak here or there, but we're talking about some pretty major changes for next season so far.

ilsox7
12-15-2005, 04:37 PM
Can someone please inform me why the Sox are supposedly trying to get rid of him? I think I'd rather have JG than Contreras.

Word is Jose will sign a reasonable extension and Garland won't.

KRS1
12-15-2005, 04:37 PM
Anaheim has a ton of minor league talent, though. If we're looking for prospects, they'd be one of the top 5 teams to start talking to IMO.

I think the Gianst and Dodgers can easily equal their talent with some of their young studs. I would love to get Billingsley, Miller, or Broxton from LA, as well as Cain, Valdez, Threets, Lowry, or any of their flamethrowers in SF. Plus I think Jon would sign out there quickly getting us even higher value. If we couldn manage a Lowry,Valdez,Threets for Jon I will buy him his ticket and pack his bags to SF.

Randar68
12-15-2005, 04:45 PM
Can someone please inform me why the Sox are supposedly trying to get rid of him? I think I'd rather have JG than Contreras. We just won the World Series. Let's not overhaul the entire team this offseason.

Flame away at me if you'd like, but I waited 25 years for this. I understand a tweak here or there, but we're talking about some pretty major changes for next season so far.

We have 6 starting pitchers making big money. We're trading someone, and JG and Contreras are the guys whose contracts come off the books first. One of them will go, get over it, it was predetermined as soon as Vasquez was acquired. No use crying about it now. Jose has true #1 capability. Garland does not have that level of talent. Garland is talented, but he is not as purely dominant or have as good "stuff" as Contreras.


Jon Garland for Brandon Wood and Jared Weaver! (is there a deeper pink color than this? LOL!)

Randar68
12-15-2005, 04:46 PM
I think the Gianst and Dodgers can easily equal their talent with some of their young studs. I would love to get Billingsley, Miller, or Broxton from LA, as well as Cain, Valdez, Threets, Lowry, or any of their flamethrowers in SF. Plus I think Jon would sign out there quickly getting us even higher value. If we couldn manage a Lowry,Valdez,Threets for Jon I will buy him his ticket and pack his bags to SF.

I like some of those ideas better because we're not trading him within the AL...

KRS1
12-15-2005, 08:54 PM
Anyone else think this trade is comer sooner rather than later? With Zito also on the block we might benefit in getting ours now and letting BB get the leftovers. Also after his huge first half, and Zito's terribly slow one, does anyone else think Jon's value might be higher than Barrys?

nodiggity59
12-15-2005, 08:58 PM
Anyone else think this trade is comer sooner rather than later? With Zito also on the block we might benefit in getting ours now and letting BB get the leftovers. Also after his huge first half, and Zito's terribly slow one, does anyone else think Jon's value might be higher than Barrys?

IMO, Jon's is higher for a one year commitment but less if teams want to sign either of them to extensions. I wonder if waiting for Zito will actually net us more than dealing first. I definitely agree with the LA/SF deals. They would both have a good chance of resigning Jon now, meaning they would give up more. I'm also intrigued by the Mets, if only b/c Minaya seems like he'd give up the most (if he has anything left to give). I don't want to see Jon in Anaheim.

In terms of talent, I'd want a package consisting of some combo of a young swingman, a high ceiling pitching prospect, and a power prospect that doesn't play 1st base.

KRS1
12-15-2005, 09:09 PM
IMO, Jon's is higher for a one year commitment but less if teams want to sign either of them to extensions. I wonder if waiting for Zito will actually net us more than dealing first. I definitely agree with the LA/SF deals. They would both have a good chance of resigning Jon now, meaning they would give up more. I'm also intrigued by the Mets, if only b/c Minaya seems like he'd give up the most (if he has anything left to give). I don't want to see Jon in Anaheim.

In terms of talent, I'd want a package consisting of some combo of a young swingman, a high ceiling pitching prospect, and a power prospect that doesn't play 1st base.

Interesting I know the Mets have Phil Humber the beanpole from the Rice championship trio, but other than that who else would we want. They dont have anyone ready for our pen(def. no lefties), we could grab Lastings Milledge but I dont really want to net a minor league OF when what we really need outta this is a starter a reliever and another prospect. Anyone got the word on their systems lefties.

caulfield12
12-15-2005, 09:46 PM
I think the Gianst and Dodgers can easily equal their talent with some of their young studs. I would love to get Billingsley, Miller, or Broxton from LA, as well as Cain, Valdez, Threets, Lowry, or any of their flamethrowers in SF. Plus I think Jon would sign out there quickly getting us even higher value. If we couldn manage a Lowry,Valdez,Threets for Jon I will buy him his ticket and pack his bags to SF.

Yeah, but Jon Adkins, Lorenzo Barcelo and Felix Diaz were supposedly flamethrowers too.

At least we donīt have Jason Grilli as our fifth starter.

KRS1
12-16-2005, 12:55 AM
Yeah, but Jon Adkins, Lorenzo Barcelo and Felix Diaz were supposedly flamethrowers too.

At least we donīt have Jason Grilli as our fifth starter.

Quick question, anyone see Felix throw this year, and if so how hard was he chuckin'?

Tragg
12-16-2005, 07:46 AM
The big difference between Garland and Vazquez , Vazquaz is not a 1 yr rent-a-player. The sox had to give up a #1 prospect. I'm sorry but I don't think Garland's value is that high. The sox were in the same situation with Durham when he was in his last yr.

He should bring, all in all, about what we paid for Vasquez - Garland is the superior talent, but only signed for 1 year (but a cheap 1 year).
I won't hold my breath on that happening, though.

Tragg
12-16-2005, 07:54 AM
Garland just won 18 games.

Vasquez just completed 2 mediocre seasons in a row and is a career <.500 pitcher........

Hell, you're claiming Vasquez isn't a rent-a-player, and he's only signed for one more season than Garland is...

Color me confused, you're not making any sense today.I agree that the Durham/Garland comparison isn't a good one.
However, just because we paid what we did for a below .500 pitcher with 2 mediocre seasons in a row, doesn't mean that's the market value for that sort of pitcher.

And color me confused as to why we traded for Vasquez, especially as we're talking about all the "prospects" we can get for the far superior Garland, when a)we just traded away our best prospect and nothing I've heard brings an equal talent back to us and b) when the prospects discussed are the less reliable/projectable pitching prospects.

I predict we'll get a national league "Set up" man (with inflated national league numbers) and a pitching prospect for Garland, and not get one of the top prospects in all of minor league baseball, like we gave up.

caulfield12
12-16-2005, 08:02 AM
I agree that the Durham/Garland comparison isn't a good one.
However, just because we paid what we did for a below .500 pitcher with 2 mediocre seasons in a row, doesn't mean that's the market value for that sort of pitcher.

And color me confused as to why we traded for Vasquez, especially as we're talking about all the "prospects" we can get for the far superior Garland, when a)we just traded away our best prospect and nothing I've heard brings an equal talent back to us and b) when the prospects discussed are the less reliable/projectable pitching prospects.

Yes, but nothing pointed to Loaiza and Contreras getting it together either. Conversely, thereīs the Todd Ritchie morphing from mediocre pitcher to number 3 starter that never was anything but a fantasy in KWīs mind.

Tragg
12-16-2005, 08:44 AM
Yes, but nothing pointed to Loaiza and Contreras getting it together either.
That's true, but we gave up a hell of a lot more for Vasquez than we did for Conteras. And that was a very horizontal trade - one essentially mediocre pitcher for another. The pitcher we gave up had a great year (but not the year in which we traded him); the pitcher we got had "great stuff". Could the Yankees get a second great year from Loiza? Could the Sox harness that "great stuff". Plus, we got the pitcher who was signed for a few years.

Vasquez doesn't even provide any relief in that 2006/07 period in which 3/4 of our team will be free agents. And in return, we lost a young player who gave us the best chance of relieving that signing pressure.

nodiggity59
12-16-2005, 08:47 AM
That's true, but we gave up a hell of a lot more for Vasquez than we did for Conteras. And that was a very horizontal trade - one essentially mediocre pitcher for another. The pitcher we gave up had a great year (but not the year in which we traded him); the pitcher we got had "great stuff". Could the Yankees get a second great year from Loiza? Could the Sox harness that "great stuff". Plus, we got the pitcher who was signed for a few years.

Vasquez doesn't even provide any relief in that 2006/07 period in which 3/4 of our team will be free agents. And in return, we lost a young player who gave us the best chance of relieving that signing pressure.

Whatever. Kenny thinks Vazquez will bounce back, otherwise he wouldn't have made the deal. You don't. We'll see who's right.

KyWhiSoxFan
12-16-2005, 08:55 AM
And color me confused as to why we traded for Vasquez, especially as we're talking about all the "prospects" we can get for the far superior Garland, when a)we just traded away our best prospect and nothing I've heard brings an equal talent back to us and b) when the prospects discussed are the less reliable/projectable pitching prospects.

I agree. It makes no sense to flip one of our starting pitchers for prospects. We would have been better off keeping Chris Young if all we get is prospects in return. For Garland, we need a position player and someone's best pitching prospect. I think a team that needs to win in 2006 would be willing to do that. If not, we'll keep Garland (though I don't think that will happen).

The Deacon
12-16-2005, 08:59 AM
I agree. It makes no sense to flip one of our starting pitchers for prospects. We would have been better off keeping Chris Young if all we get is prospects in return. For Garland, we need a position player and someone's best pitching prospect. I think a team that needs to win in 2006 would be willing to do that. If not, we'll keep Garland (though I don't think that will happen).

I agree. The only way we trade Garland for prospects is if we trade him during the 2006 season. Trading him now for prospects makes absolutely no sense.

Tragg
12-16-2005, 09:10 AM
I agree. It makes no sense to flip one of our starting pitchers for prospects. We would have been better off keeping Chris Young if all we get is prospects in return. For Garland, we need a position player and someone's best pitching prospect. I think a team that needs to win in 2006 would be willing to do that. If not, we'll keep Garland (though I don't think that will happen). Position player. The only one I see out there is Tejada where we really get an upgrade. The center fielders available are all mediocre at best - we are better off going with Anderson.
We could use a real top-level infield prospect or 2 or a top level prospect with all the tools at any position.

getonbckthr
12-16-2005, 10:29 AM
Position player. The center fielders available are all mediocre at best - we are better off going with Anderson.
.
Crawford is hardly mediocre.

Domeshot17
12-16-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally Posted by Tragg
Position player. The center fielders available are all mediocre at best - we are better off going with Anderson.
.
Originally Posted by GetOnBckthr
Crawford is hardly mediocre.

CRAWFORD IS HARDLY AVAILABLE

Mickster
12-16-2005, 10:56 AM
Position player. The only one I see out there is Tejada where we really get an upgrade. The center fielders available are all mediocre at best - we are better off going with Anderson.
We could use a real top-level infield prospect or 2 or a top level prospect with all the tools at any position.

I can honestly still see KW going after Griffey. It just seems like once KW sets his sights on a player, he'll make every effort to acquire him. He got verrry close last year, we'll see how things shape up this year.

Thankfully, it appears that he has gotten over his Washburn and Erstad fetishes.

Tragg
12-16-2005, 10:58 AM
Crawford is hardly mediocre.
His stats are.
And is he available?