PDA

View Full Version : Texas Inquiring About Garland


ChiSoxPatF
12-17-2005, 02:33 AM
I know this was under the "total BS" column earlier but Buster Olney is reporting that there is some more truth to this. At the very least Texas is asking about Garland for Hank Blalock.

Now maybe I'm crazy but this seems to make some sense to me in the way the Javier Vazquez trade made sense. Garland and Crede are both up for arbitration this year and neither will come cheap (Garland is due a big increase because of the market and Crede is the ONLY Sox player represented by Scott Boras). Both players should be inclined to go to arbitration which never ends with warm fuzzy feelings. Blalock on the other hand is only in his third year of service and won't be eligible for free agency for another 3 years.

Blalock can hit for more power, average, and is slightly faster. Granted we're down grading our defense at third but Blalock does have a good arm and is known to be a competitor.

So I guess I'm asking, does everyone else see this as a smart move for Kenny to make? And then, what would you do with Crede? Trade him for prospects or maybe mid-relievers?

fquaye149
12-17-2005, 03:00 AM
I know this was under the "total BS" column earlier but Buster Olney is reporting that there is some more truth to this. At the very least Texas is asking about Garland for Hank Blalock.

Now maybe I'm crazy but this seems to make some sense to me in the way the Javier Vazquez trade made sense. Garland and Crede are both up for arbitration this year and neither will come cheap (Garland is due a big increase because of the market and Crede is the ONLY Sox player represented by Scott Boras). Both players should be inclined to go to arbitration which never ends with warm fuzzy feelings. Blalock on the other hand is only in his third year of service and won't be eligible for free agency for another 3 years.

Blalock can hit for more power, average, and is slightly faster. Granted we're down grading our defense at third but Blalock does have a good arm and is known to be a competitor.

So I guess I'm asking, does everyone else see this as a smart move for Kenny to make? And then, what would you do with Crede? Trade him for prospects or maybe mid-relievers?

Many think Blalock is a glorified platoon player.

I don't know how I feel about that statement...but I don't know how MUCH of an upgrade he is over JC

samram
12-17-2005, 08:40 AM
Well, I think Blalock is a better player than Crede. However, he's not so much better that the Sox should have to trade a 26 year-old All-Star caliber pitcher along with Crede to get him.

Tragg
12-17-2005, 11:25 AM
According to the stat heads, Crede actually accounted for 1 more win than did Blalock last year. Whether or not that's accurate, the point is is that he isn't much of an upgrade and we have Crede for 2 more years.
Many have suggested that Blalock's inability to hit left handed pitching and his good home performance plus poor road performance suggest he's a limited player. I don't know. But you put it all together and the sum is that Blalock isn't worth any more than Crede is.

So the suggestions such as Garland and Crede for Blalock is just bizarre.

santo=dorf
12-17-2005, 11:27 AM
Just say no to Blalock. In fact Im changing my sig.

nodiggity59
12-17-2005, 11:29 AM
According to the stat heads, Crede actually accounted for 1 more win than did Blalock last year. Whether or not that's accurate, the point is is that he isn't much of an upgrade and we have Crede for 2 more years.
Many have suggested that Blalock's inability to hit left handed pitching and his good home performance plus poor road performance suggest he's a limited player. I don't know. But you put it all together and the sum is that Blalock isn't worth any more than Crede is.

So the suggestions such as Garland and Crede for Blalock is just bizarre.

You do know that Blalock is signed for more years than Crede and Garland combined, right? Contracts are just as important, sometimes more important, than talent.

Not saying I'm sure whether I would like it or not, but merely pointing out that this proposal is not "bizzare". Also, no one here is suggesting we wouldn't get more players than just Blalock, but he would be the center piece.

akingamongstmen
12-17-2005, 11:35 AM
I understand the contract ramifications involving Crede and Garland, but a lot more than Blaylock would need to be included in this type of deal. I just don't like where this could be going.

Tragg
12-17-2005, 11:36 AM
You do know that Blalock is signed for more years than Crede and Garland combined, right? Contracts are just as important, sometimes more important, than talent.

Not saying I'm sure whether I would like it or not, but merely pointing out that this proposal is not "bizzare". Also, no one here is suggesting we wouldn't get more players than just Blalock, but he would be the center piece. I do know that, and a lot of our moves are influenced by that (Vasquez for example).

But the talent differential is immense in the deal so, indeed, I will consider Crede and Garland for Blalock as bizarre (unless you want to throw a couple of top minor leaguers in there, but I'll believe that when I see it).
And most people seem to think Blalock is a limited player as it is - if true, having a limited player on a long, cheap contract is not exactly hard to find.

nodiggity59
12-17-2005, 11:42 AM
And most people seem to think Blalock is a limited player as it is - if true, having a limited player on a long, cheap contract is not exactly hard to find.

I agree that Blalock has been a limited player the past few years, and I would require top prospect or two in any deal. Probably not going to happen.

That said, this guy is only 25 and will have had 3 90+ RBI seasons already. People seem to believe he has no capacity for improvement whatsoever. But remember, Joe Crede couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at age 25. If Blalock ever did get his split problems figured out? Holy ****. That would be one hell of a player.

Something to think about.

The Deacon
12-17-2005, 12:08 PM
I agree that Blalock has been a limited player the past few years, and I would require top prospect or two in any deal. Probably not going to happen.

That said, this guy is only 25 and will have had 3 90+ RBI seasons already. People seem to believe he has no capacity for improvement whatsoever. But remember, Joe Crede couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at age 25. If Blalock ever did get his split problems figured out? Holy ****. That would be one hell of a player.

Something to think about.

I agree about Blalock. At some point a 4 year average of .274, 28HRs, 98RBIs has to get some repsect, regardless of his splits. I'm not saying I'd rather him over Crede but I dont think he is a definitive downgrade.
If Kenny could somehow pry Michael Young away from the Rangers then we'd be talking!

Huisj
12-17-2005, 12:16 PM
How is Blaylock's defense? The Sox success was built on pitching and defense. Does he fit into that?

And don't take this post the wrong way. I'm not saying he's bad--rather I really don't know what his defense is like. Does anyone know much about his glove? He doesn't seem to make a lot of errors, but that never tells the whole story.

Palehose Pete
12-17-2005, 12:27 PM
I know that all of this trade buzz is coming from Texas, but let's hope that Jon Boy listens to it. I hope that it's just a way to let Garland know that if he doesn't make a deal with the Sox soon, he'll get traded to the the Rangers and the worst place outside of Coors Field for a pitcher to make a living, especially in a contract year. Jon-Jon will cost too much next year if he has another 18 win season with the Sox, but if he's traded now to the Rangers, well, let's just say that he won't command as much in the contract negotiations next fall during his free agency.

The Deacon
12-17-2005, 12:33 PM
How is Blaylock's defense? The Sox success was built on pitching and defense. Does he fit into that?

And don't take this post the wrong way. I'm not saying he's bad--rather I really don't know what his defense is like. Does anyone know much about his glove? He doesn't seem to make a lot of errors, but that never tells the whole story.

His 'Range Factor' is higher than the league average and practically identical to Crede's. I havent really seen him play that often though.

veeter
12-17-2005, 12:49 PM
If and when Jon Garland leaves to make the huge dollars, it's going to ruin him. Picture this: Jon signs a 5 year/ $65 mill. deal with, let's say, the Dodgers. Now, he's THE man. He's getting 'ace' money and 'ace' performance will be expected. He won't have Freddy, Mark, Jose or Brandon to hide behind. Rate the "pressure to win" quotient however you want, but wherever he'd sign, the pressure would be huge. I don't see Garland being the, lean-on ace type. I think he regret leaving the Sox the rest of his life.

KRS1
12-17-2005, 12:49 PM
You do know that Blalock is signed for more years than Crede and Garland combined, right? Contracts are just as important, sometimes more important, than talent.

Not saying I'm sure whether I would like it or not, but merely pointing out that this proposal is not "bizzare". Also, no one here is suggesting we wouldn't get more players than just Blalock, but he would be the center piece.

Do you know that we have Crede under arb. for the exact same amount of years(3)that Hank has on his overpayed contract? Also, you do know Hank Blalock sucks right?

The Wimperoo
12-17-2005, 12:56 PM
Hank Blalock sucks. He can't hit left-handed pitching, can't hit away from Texas, and is an average defender. Who gives a crap if he is signed for the next few years. Crede is under contract (arb eligible) for the next few years as well. I wouldn't trade Crede straight up for Blalock, let alone Garland and Crede. Hopefully this is all useless tripe and KW isn't actually considering it.

For those that want Michael Young, he is pretty terrible defensively compared to Uribe. Obviously a better hitter, but does his offense make up for the brutal defense?

nodiggity59
12-17-2005, 01:00 PM
Do you know that we have Crede under arb. for the exact same amount of years(3)that Hank has on his overpayed contract? Also, you do know Hank Blalock sucks right?

Crede walks after 07. Blalock is under contract until after 09 (including the option on his deal). Also, Blalock has had 3 straight 90 RBI seasons and he's 25 years old. Crede is 27 and has never had more than 75.

Blalock is a flawed player. But everyone around here is giving him a lot of **** for a guy who's so young. Guess once a player turns 25 you know everything you need to know about him for the rest of his career.

veeter
12-17-2005, 01:02 PM
Hank Blalock sucks. He can't hit left-handed pitching, can't hit away from Texas, and is an average defender. Who gives a crap if he is signed for the next few years. Crede is under contract (arb eligible) for the next few years as well. I wouldn't trade Crede straight up for Blalock, let alone Garland and Crede. Hopefully this is all useless tripe and KW isn't actually considering it.

For those that want Michael Young, he is pretty terrible defensively compared to Uribe. Obviously a better hitter, but does his offense make up for the brutal defense? I totally agree with the Michael young thing. Look, I know there are great shortstops out there. But aside from MAYBE Tejada, I love my man Uribe. His defense is gold glove and his offense is solid. He just fits with the Sox. He's our guy.

KRS1
12-17-2005, 01:30 PM
Crede walks after 07. Blalock is under contract until after 09 (including the option on his deal). Also, Blalock has had 3 straight 90 RBI seasons and he's 25 years old. Crede is 27 and has never had more than 75.

Blalock is a flawed player. But everyone around here is giving him a lot of **** for a guy who's so young. Guess once a player turns 25 you know everything you need to know about him for the rest of his career.

Wrong, this will be his first year in arb., and a player has to go through 3 years of it to be a FA. Which means Joe will be here through 08',and for everyone saying Borass is his agent and theyll get a bumload in arb. how much can a player who hit .252 and .232 the last two seasons get? Let Borass ask for 5 mil. while we hear this and lowball him to 2 which any abritrator with a brain would accept. If Boras gets ridicoulous with his request then he'll just lose like many have in the past.

santo=dorf
12-17-2005, 02:26 PM
Crede walks after 07. Blalock is under contract until after 09 (including the option on his deal). Also, Blalock has had 3 straight 90 RBI seasons and he's 25 years old. Crede is 27 and has never had more than 75.

Blalock is a flawed player. But everyone around here is giving him a lot of **** for a guy who's so young. Guess once a player turns 25 you know everything you need to know about him for the rest of his career.

Sorry, I don't care about age when my team is the defending the champions. I don't care what his age is, he doesn't improve our team. What makes you think he'll improve? Greg Walker? KRS1 and I are both critical of Blalock because we do not feel he is worthy of the contract he got. Should we give Corey Patterson get a shot? He's young.

Your RBI argument is flawed too because Crede doesn't hit in a lineup full of free swingers, and he never bats as high in the order as Blalock.

Blalock = young Vinna Castilla. He is a pure product of the Ballpark in Arlington, and he fades away after the all-star break. Why would we want that on a defending World Championship team that is looking to repeat? :?:

Tragg
12-17-2005, 05:34 PM
A lot of teams are interested in Crede and have been for a while. And it isn't because he gets sports center highlights, because he doesn't. His glove is impeccable, and he's signed for 3 more years, why are we even thinking about trading him (absent the moon)?

batmanZoSo
12-17-2005, 06:03 PM
Nay.

Crede was instrumental in our winning the World Series. I'm not saying he's better than Blalock, but Crede's glove and knack for the big hit have proven to be more than enough for us at third base. To me, this move would definitely be a chemistry changer. Blalock's not a bad guy (as far as I know), but losing Crede and Garland kind of changes the dynamic of the team and clubhouse somewhat. If we're going to alter something that important, to me it should be by bringing in a flat-out stud player. It should be a bigger upgrade than Blalock anyway.

nodiggity59
12-17-2005, 06:12 PM
A lot of teams are interested in Crede and have been for a while. And it isn't because he gets sports center highlights, because he doesn't. His glove is impeccable, and he's signed for 3 more years, why are we even thinking about trading him (absent the moon)?

1. Streaky

2. Represented by Boras

3. 2 heirniated disks

Forget about Blalock. Those are 3 reasons to get rid of Joe right there, particularly the last 2 in relation to comments that KW has made about not working w/ Boras and concerns about Joe's health.

Flight #24
12-17-2005, 07:02 PM
1. Streaky

2. Represented by Boras

3. 2 heirniated disks

Forget about Blalock. Those are 3 reasons to get rid of Joe right there, particularly the last 2 in relation to comments that KW has made about not working w/ Boras and concerns about Joe's health.

Can we get off the Boras thing? That's only an issue for Boras's FAs, because that's when he can play the whole "mystery team" angle and basically lie. That is NOT the case in arbitration. Boras does NOT have a horrid history with winning clients ludicrous arb awards as far as I know.

Boras does not become a factor for the Sox until Crede hits FA. So he should not be a factor pushing to get rid of Joe.

Tragg
12-18-2005, 02:00 AM
1. Streaky

2. Represented by Boras

3. 2 heirniated disks

Forget about Blalock. Those are 3 reasons to get rid of Joe right there, particularly the last 2 in relation to comments that KW has made about not working w/ Boras and concerns about Joe's health.
On the other hand, Crede is:

a) cheaper than Blalock -
b)Can't go F/A for 3 more years (making the Boras aspect irrelevant)
c)The superior defensive player
d)Doesn't require us to give up talent; (I don't think a straight-up exchange of Blalock-Crede is discussed; )

Banix12
12-18-2005, 03:31 AM
Getting off the Blalock thing. Right now I think if I am trading Garland I want to fill the few holes left on the White Sox major league roster going into next year as well as bring in at least one high level potential starting pitcher for a couple years down the road.

Right now I set my asking price for Garland as
1) the top starting pitching prospect in the system of the team the sox are dealing with. This is provided that player is actually any good, there are a lot of weak farm systems out there.
2) A quality Left Handed reliever
3) A quality backup OF who can start in place of Anderson in case there is a problem (though certainly this can be easily replaced with more prospects, OF can be found elsewhere such as the FA list but if Kenny can get a decent one as a throw in during the deal he should take it)

This is just the starting point of negotiations, Kenny of course has plenty of wriggle room. In an ideal situation I would like any Garland trade to cover at least points 1 and 2 and possibly get some more quality talent in return but if that trade isn't possible go for the best possible deal and find a way to acquire what couldn't be had.

The one thing on this list I know for positive that the Rangers cannot provide the white sox is a quality MLB level left handed reliever. The Rangers seem pretty devoid of left handed pitching talent at the MLB level right now. I'm not totally familiar with the Rangers farm system so I'm not sure how their top pitching prospects are. The names I keep coming up with in searches are Thomas Diamond and Edison Volquez.

kwolf68
12-18-2005, 11:51 AM
A deal with Texas would have to include at minimum

Blaylock
CJ Wilson (a lefty to compete for a roster spot)
Thomas Diamond (top pitching prospect)
Another prospect (John Danks? Josh Rupe?)

for

Garland and Crede.

We'd get a capable 3rd baseman to replace Crede (as its almost foregone conclusion he'll be gone when he's due as a free agent), a lefty reliever who could develop into a starter one day and at least 1 big time prospect.

Vazquez allows the Sox to deal Garland and Blaylock replaces Crede. Kinda wash there, then we get 2 prospects (one big time) to replinish from.

Jjav829
12-18-2005, 11:56 AM
A deal with Texas would have to include at minimum

Blaylock
CJ Wilson (a lefty to compete for a roster spot)
Thomas Diamond (top pitching prospect)
Another prospect (John Danks? Josh Rupe?)

for

Garland and Crede.

We'd get a capable 3rd baseman to replace Crede (as its almost foregone conclusion he'll be gone when he's due as a free agent), a lefty reliever who could develop into a starter one day and at least 1 big time prospect.

Vazquez allows the Sox to deal Garland and Blaylock replaces Crede. Kinda wash there, then we get 2 prospects (one big time) to replinish from.

If I see this one more time I will puke. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Crede is looking to leave. I don't care who his agent is. The ultimate decision about Joe Crede's future is made by Joe Crede. If he wants to stay, you better believe he will be telling Boras to get a contract done.

rowand33
12-18-2005, 06:08 PM
I don't understand this attitude of making the team worse next season so we can have players for a long time...

Let's win the World Series next season and worry about the holes a year from now.

And Crede is better than Blaylock, so you just don't do this.

Taliesinrk
12-18-2005, 06:36 PM
If I see this one more time I will puke. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Crede is looking to leave. I don't care who his agent is. The ultimate decision about Joe Crede's future is made by Joe Crede. If he wants to stay, you better believe he will be telling Boras to get a contract done.

No joke... +1

sircaffey1
12-18-2005, 07:33 PM
If we are to discuss Hank Blalock in detail and claim to know Crede is better please at least spell Hank's name correctly (no "y").

Banix12
12-18-2005, 07:46 PM
A deal with Texas would have to include at minimum

Blaylock
CJ Wilson (a lefty to compete for a roster spot)
Thomas Diamond (top pitching prospect)
Another prospect (John Danks? Josh Rupe?)

for

Garland and Crede.

We'd get a capable 3rd baseman to replace Crede (as its almost foregone conclusion he'll be gone when he's due as a free agent), a lefty reliever who could develop into a starter one day and at least 1 big time prospect.

Vazquez allows the Sox to deal Garland and Blaylock replaces Crede. Kinda wash there, then we get 2 prospects (one big time) to replinish from.


I would personally rather see what the sox could get for Garland without packaging Crede. I think the reasons why crede would be sticking around have been well covered.

Certainly looking at some of the trades made this offseason, Garland alone should bring in a decent haul, even if it is his contract year. If Lyle Overbay can bring back 2 good pitching prospects and a 4th OF for the Brewers and Juan Pierre can bring back 2 very good pitching prospects and Sergio Mitre as a fifth starter in his contract year I think Garland should fetch a solid amount.

Last time I checked starting pitchers of his quality aren't too available on the trade market and most of the pitching on the Free Agent is either too expensive or not all that good. In an offseason where the Free Agent list is thin teams tend to trade young talent of higher quality and at higher quantities.

I would take the trade you have up there and eliminate Blalock and Crede from it and try to rework it. The must have appears to be Thomas Diamond, if the Rangers aren't willing to give him up the sox can probably stop talking to them.

Though the problem I am seeing with dealing with the Rangers is they don't seem to have the kind of guys who can come up and help soon, like this year. Most of their good young pitchers appear to be a couple years off. Certainly their hitting prospects are much more advanced.

I have to think if Garland is truly on the Market there are teams out there that would be interested that could offer a far more attractive package than what Texas can offer. I think if the Rangers want Garland they would have to either give up most of the farm or maybe work out a three way deal that would get the sox the players they need going into next season.

TomBradley72
12-18-2005, 11:22 PM
Blalock: 25, LH,Healthy,2 time All Star
2005:161 games, .263-25-92, .973 Fielding Pct.,11 E's

Crede: 27, RH, 2 herniated discs
2005:130 games,.252-22-62, .971 Fielding Pct., 10 E's

Blalock looks like a pretty viable alternative to me.

Due to his health...the WSox might be better off with Blalock in terms of going for a repeat. Crede was in pretty rough shape after the All Star break...and no real prognosis for the his back to get better.

Tragg
12-18-2005, 11:41 PM
What is notable to me is that Crede's production isn't that much different than the Blalock's , except for RBIs (a reflection of position in batting order?), and he's a lot cheaper. It simply doesn't seem to me to be worth more than a 1 for 1 swap; we shouldn't need to use the Garland leverage to make that deal.

Bannix outlined some of the trades of players not nearly as good as Garland, that netted a nice package of young players. No reason we shouldn't be able to do the same.

nodiggity59
12-18-2005, 11:47 PM
[quote=Banix12]Juan Pierre can bring back 2 very good pitching prospects and Sergio Mitre as a fifth starter in his contract year I think Garland should fetch a solid amount.


quote]

That is not a valid comparison b/c the Cubs are extremely confident they can resign Pierre next year - if they want to. Whoever gets JG HAS NO GUARANTEE TO RESIGN HIM!!! This is very important in determining how much a team will give up to acquire him.

Look at it from the opposite team's standpoint for once. If they give up a lot for Garland and he blows (like he has at all times minus 1st half of 05 and post season), they gave up a ton for an over hyped guy. If he works out, they're just one of about a dozen suitors willing to give him the Burnett deal as a starting point :o: .

Unlike the Sox, many teams don't see themselves as being one step from the WS. And the teams that do (Anaheim) are ones we don't want to be giving to JG. This is a much more complicated situation than most lead on.

Flight #24
12-18-2005, 11:50 PM
I look at it this way. Texas was reportedly going to send Blalock and IIRC one of Danks/Diamond for Josh Beckett, who's got 2 arb years left. That wasn't enough. I tell them that Garland, who's far more durable, proven in the AL, and only 1 year older but has 1 year left, is worth similar return. No Blalock, just Diamond+Danks. That would do it for me.

TaylorStSox
12-18-2005, 11:56 PM
I'd like to know why Blalock's splits are so bad. Texas has been accused of cheating a few times. All of their splits are absurd. Blalock > Crede. Those splits scare me though.

I'm really confident that Crede's going to break out. I'm not worried about Boras either.

nodiggity59
12-18-2005, 11:58 PM
I look at it this way. Texas was reportedly going to send Blalock and IIRC one of Danks/Diamond for Josh Beckett, who's got 2 arb years left. That wasn't enough. I tell them that Garland, who's far more durable, proven in the AL, and only 1 year older but has 1 year left, is worth similar return. No Blalock, just Diamond+Danks. That would do it for me.

That makes some sense to me. Though, I wonder if we could get similar value from a contender at the deadline. That would be contigent upon JG having a good year, of course, which is not guaranteed.

I'm warming to the idea of sending him to non contenders, at the deadline, who think they have a shot. From 05 that would be teams like: Mets, Phillies, Cubs, Baltimore, Texas, Padres. We definitely could get two top end prospects from a team thinking they have a shot at winning it all. Can you say Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir? And JG could be twice the grab that Zambrano was at that time. Plus, we have him around in case of injuries, etc.

We'll see. The only simple answer is Tejada :D: .

Tragg
12-19-2005, 12:00 AM
Unlike the Sox, many teams don't see themselves as being one step from the WS. And the teams that do (Anaheim) are ones we don't want to be giving to JG. This is a much more complicated situation than most lead on. That's why you trade him to a NL team. The NL looks so wide open, there should be plenty of suitors. If he beats us in the WS, so be it.

I'm sure that there's some team out there that thinks they can sign Garland, if that's what it takes. No use dealing him until all rocks in that regard have been turned over. It simply defies credulity that considering the current pitcher market, there is low value to a 1 year pitcher at $6 million (I think that's what he makes). And if he has low value, there's a simple solution - keep him, he'll be quite helpful this year, and take the draft choices. He'll help us more this year than he will in a trade if the return really is low value (like garland/crede for blalock - that's just giving him away. not to mention that they rangers are .500 team that are just a few pitchers away from contending).

Banix12
12-19-2005, 12:02 AM
That is not a valid comparison b/c the Cubs are extremely confident they can resign Pierre next year - if they want to. Whoever gets JG HAS NO GUARANTEE TO RESIGN HIM!!! This is very important in determining how much a team will give up to acquire him.

Look at it from the opposite team's standpoint for once. If they give up a lot for Garland and he blows (like he has at all times minus 1st half of 05 and post season), they gave up a ton for an over hyped guy. If he works out, they're just one of about a dozen suitors willing to give him the Burnett deal as a starting point :o: .

Unlike the Sox, many teams don't see themselves as being one step from the WS. And the teams that do (Anaheim) are ones we don't want to be giving to JG. This is a much more complicated situation than most lead on.


Just because the Tribune is reporting that they are confident that they are going to resign Pierre doesn't make it true. In fact I have mostly been hearing that there are no guarantees that they can resign Pierre and they might not even offer him a new deal depending on how much the cubs management likes the progress Pie makes this season. The market for leadoff men is just as inflated as the market for starting pitching right now. In fact I would say more inflated thanks to the Furcal signing.

The only way the cubs would have been guaranteed to resign Pierre was to make that part of the trade where they would have had 72 hours to work out an extension or something like that. The cubs have ZERO guarantee that he is sticking around so it is a very valid comparison.

If a team needs pitching bad enough they will trade to get it and just because it is a contract year doesn't mean a team won't give up solid talent to do so. Especially in a year like this year when there are very few viable alternatives.

And don't be so condecending about "looking at it from the other team's standpoint". I do that all the time. It's not like I was proposing a rediculous deal. I'm proposing a deal comperable to the deal a mediocre hitter like Lyle Overbay got from Toronto. Texas needs pitching and would probably be more willing to trade for Garland even without the guarantee of him resigning than doing something stupid like giving big money and multiple years to a guy like Jeff Weaver. If Garland does well they can shell out the money and if he fails they chalk it up to experience and find someone else.

The Deacon
12-19-2005, 12:08 AM
I'd like to know why Blalock's splits are so bad. Texas has been accused of cheating a few times. All of their splits are absurd. Blalock > Crede. Those splits scare me though.

I'm really confident that Crede's going to break out. I'm not worried about Boras either.

Many lefties can't hit lefites. Many players who hit at Boston are accused of a home field hitters advantage. Many of these people are also in the HOF.
Not a huge fan of Blalock but splits dont mean as much as people think, most hitters have strengths and weaknesses. Thome hit .233 against lefties the last 3-4 years.

gr8mexico
12-19-2005, 12:13 AM
I look at it this way. Texas was reportedly going to send Blalock and IIRC one of Danks/Diamond for Josh Beckett, who's got 2 arb years left. That wasn't enough. I tell them that Garland, who's far more durable, proven in the AL, and only 1 year older but has 1 year left, is worth similar return. No Blalock, just Diamond+Danks. That would do it for me. If the Sox do trade Garland to the Rangers for Blalock and Diamond or Danks. What can the Sox get for Blalock? The Sox dont need Blalock I think Josh Fields could replace Crede in case he ever leaves. I could imagen that alot of teams would really be interested in Blalock

TaylorStSox
12-19-2005, 12:13 AM
Many lefties can't hit lefites. Many players who hit at Boston are accused of a home field hitters advantage. Many of these people are also in the HOF.
Not a huge fan of Blalock but splits dont mean as much as people think, most hitters have strengths and weaknesses. Thome hit .233 against lefties the last 3-4 years.


His home/away splits are just so uncommon. I'm not talking about his LH/RH splits. I don't worry about him not hitting LH. I worry about him not getting the ball out of the IF on the road.

Fantosme
12-19-2005, 12:26 AM
If the Sox do trade Garland to the Rangers for Blalock and Diamond or Danks. What can the Sox get for Blalock? The Sox dont need Blalock I think Josh Fields could replace Crede in case he ever leaves. I could imagen that alot of teams would really be interested in Blalock
The Twins are reportedly offering Scott Baker for Blalock, but they may not want to trade within the division

Also, I don't see why the Sox would want to trade for a minor league SP considering 4 of the 6 starters are under contract next year and Contreras could sign an extension soon.

KRS1
12-19-2005, 12:42 AM
The Twins are reportedly offering Scott Baker for Blalock, but they may not want to trade within the division

Also, I don't see why the Sox would want to trade for a minor league SP considering 4 of the 6 starters are under contract next year and Contreras could sign an extension soon.

Ummm..... You do know that Texas is in the West and we are in the Central division? Did you mean same league like AL, NL?

Banix12
12-19-2005, 12:48 AM
The Twins are reportedly offering Scott Baker for Blalock, but they may not want to trade within the division

Also, I don't see why the Sox would want to trade for a minor league SP considering 4 of the 6 starters are under contract next year and Contreras could sign an extension soon.

I think the idea is that if the sox can grab 2-3 good pitching prospects there will be 1) talent on the farm in case there is a problem and 2) multiple trading chips in case there is a need that must be addressed at the trade deadline 3) someone who might be able to take over in 2-3 years in case the sox are unable to sign one of the other guys when the contract comes up for a guy like Garcia or Buehrle.

Personally though I would rather fill current needs for next season than try to get prospects that might be good 1-3 years down the line. Certainly though since the sox major needs appear to be left handed reliever and backup CF (or starting CF depending on your opinion of Anderson) a solid pitching prospect should be part of any deal since that certainly wouldn't be enough value in return for Garland.

This is all just idle specuation anyway since there really is nothing baseball related to talk about.

Fantosme
12-19-2005, 01:18 AM
Ummm..... You do know that Texas is in the West and we are in the Central division? Did you mean same league like AL, NL?
I was referring to his quote, where he said that if the Sox acquired Blalock, who could they get for him.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-19-2005, 05:17 AM
I liked the original rumor (Wilkerson and Blalock). Blalock alone is not inticing to me. Wilkerson is a great defender, would be a great #2 and would hit homers at the cell (RFK held down his homers last season). Blalock's cost certainty and age are pluses but I rather get Wilkerson as well or send Garland off for something else. Josh Fields will soon be ready and I rather spend the money elsewhere.

caulfield12
12-19-2005, 09:28 AM
I think the idea is that if the sox can grab 2-3 good pitching prospects there will be 1) talent on the farm in case there is a problem and 2) multiple trading chips in case there is a need that must be addressed at the trade deadline 3) someone who might be able to take over in 2-3 years in case the sox are unable to sign one of the other guys when the contract comes up for a guy like Garcia or Buehrle.

Personally though I would rather fill current needs for next season than try to get prospects that might be good 1-3 years down the line. Certainly though since the sox major needs appear to be left handed reliever and backup CF (or starting CF depending on your opinion of Anderson) a solid pitching prospect should be part of any deal since that certainly wouldn't be enough value in return for Garland.

This is all just idle specuation anyway since there really is nothing baseball related to talk about.

I think Baker would be a fine addition for the Sox, but the Twins would never give him to us. We would be more likely to take a flier on non-tender Kyle Lohse, but he would only sign if he knew he was to be in the bullpen (Vizcaino's and El Duque's spot) and the first back-up for anyone in the rotation going down. We have too many starters now.

The Twins are obviously not going to give up Liriano. He is the Brandon McCarthy of that organization. All signs point to him being the fourth starter out of Spring Training.

We could have used JC Romero probably, but it would have been unlikely that the Twins would have accepted Marte for Romero straight up.

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 10:25 AM
The Twins are reportedly offering Scott Baker for Blalock, but they may not want to trade within the division

Also, I don't see why the Sox would want to trade for a minor league SP considering 4 of the 6 starters are under contract next year and Contreras could sign an extension soon.

Wow, if the Sox could spin a Garland for Baker+Diamond/Danks deal, that would be sweet. Baker was reasonably highly thought of by the Twins, and would be a guy you could resonably target to be ready this year as a reliever/spot starter and then moving to being starter either next year or ideally, the year after. You'd still have 6 guys that you'd have some comfort in starting. And you'd effectively replace Gio with Diamond/Danks in terms of your 2-3 years out stud SP prospect.

Randar68
12-19-2005, 10:56 AM
I know this was under the "total BS" column earlier but Buster Olney is reporting that there is some more truth to this. At the very least Texas is asking about Garland for Hank Blalock.

Now maybe I'm crazy but this seems to make some sense to me in the way the Javier Vazquez trade made sense. Garland and Crede are both up for arbitration this year and neither will come cheap (Garland is due a big increase because of the market and Crede is the ONLY Sox player represented by Scott Boras). Both players should be inclined to go to arbitration which never ends with warm fuzzy feelings. Blalock on the other hand is only in his third year of service and won't be eligible for free agency for another 3 years.

Blalock can hit for more power, average, and is slightly faster. Granted we're down grading our defense at third but Blalock does have a good arm and is known to be a competitor.

So I guess I'm asking, does everyone else see this as a smart move for Kenny to make? And then, what would you do with Crede? Trade him for prospects or maybe mid-relievers?

I tell Texas:

Garland for Texiera and a mutual 72-hour window for both to be signed to long-term deals for the deal to go through.

Take it or leave it.

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 10:59 AM
I tell Texas:

Garland for Texiera and a mutual 72-hour window for both to be signed to long-term deals for the deal to go through.

Take it or leave it.:hawk "Where's he gonna play?"

I'm actually somewhat serious. That deal would have made huge sense before trading for Thome or resigning Konerko. But you'd be moving Teixeira to the OF (RF?), or benching a fairly high-salaried guy. The Sox only have 2 of them, but they basically limit your ability to trade for a 1B/DH.

It's obviously a significant offensive upgrade over anyone we have, but I don't see how it fits, barring a trade of Thome/Paulie.

Frater Perdurabo
12-19-2005, 11:56 AM
I tell Texas:

Garland for Texiera and a mutual 72-hour window for both to be signed to long-term deals for the deal to go through.

Take it or leave it.

:thud:

I like it.

But still, I share Flight #24's concern about where to play "Big Tex." They almost would have to expand the deal, or find a way to deal one of Dye, Konerko or Thome (and isn't it true that Konerko could not be dealt because he just signed his new contract?) to a third team. Would you move Teixeira to third base, the position he played in college?

I get the feeling neither team would be able to come to a long-term agreement with either player, which would make the deal null and void. However, IIRC Teixeira has three more arbitration years to Garland's one (which is why Boras is demanding either a three-year deal or a ten-year deal, nothing in between).

Tragg
12-19-2005, 12:15 PM
It's obviously a significant offensive upgrade over anyone we have, but I don't see how it fits, barring a trade of Thome/Paulie. So, trade Konerko and Garland, for Tex and one of their top prospects, under Randar's signing proviso above.
Ridiculous, I know.

Randar68
12-19-2005, 12:16 PM
. Would you move Teixeira to third base, the position he played in college?

Bingo.

I understand the Boras issue, that's why the deal is contingent upon said extensions...

I would sign the 10-year deal, believe it or not. The guy is a super-stud. For those # of years, though, I wouldn't exceed about 10-12M per year... You move him back to 1st base when Thome is done and Konerko goes to DH.

Basically Garland/Crede for Texiera. (although if Texas would do it without Crede, you turn around and trade him for prospects or bench help, IMO.

Whole discussion should be in deeppink, I know...

Rocky Soprano
12-19-2005, 12:46 PM
Bingo.

I understand the Boras issue, that's why the deal is contingent upon said extensions...

I would sign the 10-year deal, believe it or not. The guy is a super-stud. For those # of years, though, I wouldn't exceed about 10-12M per year... You move him back to 1st base when Thome is done and Konerko goes to DH.

Basically Garland/Crede for Texiera. (although if Texas would do it without Crede, you turn around and trade him for prospects or bench help, IMO.

Whole discussion should be in deeppink, I know...

I would love to have Texiera on the Sox.
I would drive Konerko and Garland to Texas myself.

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 01:00 PM
Bingo.

I understand the Boras issue, that's why the deal is contingent upon said extensions...

I would sign the 10-year deal, believe it or not. The guy is a super-stud. For those # of years, though, I wouldn't exceed about 10-12M per year... You move him back to 1st base when Thome is done and Konerko goes to DH.

Basically Garland/Crede for Texiera. (although if Texas would do it without Crede, you turn around and trade him for prospects or bench help, IMO.

Whole discussion should be in deeppink, I know...

Is that even remotely feasible? I admit that I don't know much about Tex's defensive abilities, but he hasnt' played 3d in a while, no? And there aren't that many slugging 1Bs that are even passable at 3B, let alone good defenders.

Just seems like a recipe for defensive disaster, even though it'd be a huge offensive upgrade. RF would seem a more likely fit, and I'm not comfortable with that either.

soxfanatlanta
12-19-2005, 01:36 PM
I would love to have Texiera on the Sox.
I would drive Konerko and Garland to Texas myself.

Wow. The ink on Knerko's deal is not even dry yet, and you are loading him into your car. Couldn't we at least pass the hat around and send him on a SouthWest flight?

I love this crazy speculation :smile:

santo=dorf
12-19-2005, 02:13 PM
Bingo.

I understand the Boras issue, that's why the deal is contingent upon said extensions...

I would sign the 10-year deal, believe it or not. The guy is a super-stud. For those # of years, though, I wouldn't exceed about 10-12M per year... You move him back to 1st base when Thome is done and Konerko goes to DH.

Basically Garland/Crede for Texiera. (although if Texas would do it without Crede, you turn around and trade him for prospects or bench help, IMO.

Whole discussion should be in deeppink, I know...

A lifetime road line of .253/.334/.454/.788 is not worth $100-$120 million.

Stay away from all of these Texas hitters except Michael Young.

nodiggity59
12-19-2005, 02:19 PM
A lifetime road line of .253/.334/.454/.788 is not worth $100-$120 million.

Stay away from all of these Texas hitters except Michael Young.

"Lifetime"? For a 25 year old player?

:rolleyes:

samram
12-19-2005, 02:24 PM
A lifetime road line of .253/.334/.454/.788 is not worth $100-$120 million.

Stay away from all of these Texas hitters except Michael Young.

I agree with you as regards Blalock, but Texeira is a top ten hitter. His "lifetime" road line shouldn't stop any team from acquiring him. Also, let's not act as if USCF is the old Polo Grounds.

Randar68
12-19-2005, 02:43 PM
A lifetime road line of .253/.334/.454/.788 is not worth $100-$120 million.

And in his 3 seasons in the majors, his most-recent 2 dwarf Paul Konerko's career BEST season. The same Paul Konerko we are paying 5/60 to.

We're talking about a 40 HR left-handed hitting 25-year old.

I admit 3B isn't a great option for him, perhaps OF is actually a better place to fit him in for the near term, but you can't pass up the chance to acquire a player like that if it presents itself.

Hell, if I could acquire Texiera and the ony way I could get him in the lineup is to trade Jim Thome, I'd do that if I had to.

santo=dorf
12-19-2005, 02:52 PM
I agree with you as regards Blalock, but Texeira is a top ten hitter. His "lifetime" road line shouldn't stop any team from acquiring him. Also, let's not act as if USCF is the old Polo Grounds.

Top 10 based on what?

Vinny Castilla was a great hitter in 4 of his 5 years in Colorado, and look at what happened when he left that ballpark.

The numbers don't lie. Soriano, Teixiera, and Blalock all mash at home, but aren't anything special (sometimes just bad) on the road.

JUribe1989
12-19-2005, 02:55 PM
Top 10 based on what?

Vinny Castilla was a great hitter in 4 of his 5 years in Colorado, and look at what happened when he left that ballpark.

The numbers don't lie. Soriano, Teixiera, and Blalock all mash at home, but aren't anything special (sometimes just bad) on the road.

Actually Soriano hit 38 and 39 hr's when he was on the Yankees, and his road splits were pretty much the same as at home. There was no overwhelming difference. I don't really understand all the hate for Blalock. It is much easier to hit at the Cell than it is in Arlington anyways. So wouldn't he prosper here?

santo=dorf
12-19-2005, 02:57 PM
And in his 3 seasons in the majors, his most-recent 2 dwarf Paul Konerko's career BEST season. The same Paul Konerko we are paying 5/60 to.

I understand that, and you know I wasn't in complete favor of bringing Konerko back (I pointed to his road numbers too.) Konerko is already signed and Thome is here, so I really don't see the point of going after another 1B just for the sake of being able to control him for 10 years. Let's try to win a couple more championships, and then go after Teixeria. Who knows, maybe in 4 years Texas will be looking to get out of Teixeria's big contract and then we can cherry pick him from them. :cool:

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 03:05 PM
Top 10 based on what?

Vinny Castilla was a great hitter in 4 of his 5 years in Colorado, and look at what happened when he left that ballpark.

The numbers don't lie. Soriano, Teixiera, and Blalock all mash at home, but aren't anything special (sometimes just bad) on the road.

Tex on the road his 1st 3 years: .217 - .264 - .270. That's solid. And his home #s are exceptional, and wouldn't drop off any in the cell. Plus, you could expect going into his 4th year that he would continue to improve.

I don't see it beause I can't see trading Thome or Paulie and I don't see movin Tex to RF. But to argue that he's not one of the premier offensive players in the game today? :?:

santo=dorf
12-19-2005, 03:15 PM
Tex on the road his 1st 3 years: .217 - .264 - .270. That's solid. And his home #s are exceptional, and wouldn't drop off any in the cell. Plus, you could expect going into his 4th year that he would continue to improve.

I don't see it beause I can't see trading Thome or Paulie and I don't see movin Tex to RF. But to argue that he's not one of the premier offensive players in the game today? :?:

Teixeria's OPS road numbers during the same time.

.646-.893-.809

His road slg% dropped by 91 points last season.

Juribe1989:

Even if Blalock played at USCF like he does at Arlington, what about the other 81 games on the road for us? He sucks after the All-star break. How big was Crede down the stretch and in the playoffs? How well would you expect someone to play in the playoffs if they've been sleep walking since August? Blalock can't lefties. Look at our division (off the top of my head): Sabathia, Cliff Lee, Mike Maroth, Johan Santana, Liriano, and Mark Redman all pitch in our division.

samram
12-19-2005, 03:20 PM
Top 10 based on what?

Vinny Castilla was a great hitter in 4 of his 5 years in Colorado, and look at what happened when he left that ballpark.

The numbers don't lie. Soriano, Teixiera, and Blalock all mash at home, but aren't anything special (sometimes just bad) on the road.

Top 10 based on there's not 10 guys better than he is.

santo=dorf
12-19-2005, 03:25 PM
Top 10 based on there's not 10 guys better than he is.

A-Rod, Manny, David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, Bobby Abreu, Helton, Sheffield, Delgado, Vlad, Giambi, and Pujols without looking.

samram
12-19-2005, 03:57 PM
A-Rod, Manny, David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, Bobby Abreu, Helton, Sheffield, Delgado, Vlad, Giambi, and Pujols without looking.

The guys in bold, I'll certainly agree with you. The other guys are arguable at best.

Giambi and Sheffield. Something about those guys, I can't remember just what, might have contributed to their success.

You've been going on and on about home field hitting, but I guess Helton (who isn't better than him anymore anyway) must not have that advantage that Castilla had.

Delgado is arguable, but I'll take Texeira.

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 03:59 PM
A-Rod, Manny, David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, Bobby Abreu, Helton, Sheffield, Delgado, Vlad, Giambi, and Pujols without looking.

You might want to look, Because I think you'll find some serious ?s about some of them, including Abreu (2d half dropoff), Helton (home/road), Giambi/Sheff ('roids). Plus Tex is IIRC 25, which is off the top of my head, about 10 years younger than anyone but Pujols, Arod, Hafner, Abreu. And he's 3-5 years younger than that last set of guys.

So we have a guy who's already in the vicinity of the top 10 if not in the top 10, and is anywhere from 3-10 years younger than the guys above him, and who can realistically be expected to continue to improve for at least a few years.

The downside of this is what exactly? I agree the Sox may not have room because of earlier moves, but trying to argue that you don't want Teixeira because he's just not that good? :?:

KRS1
12-19-2005, 04:43 PM
A-Rod, Manny, David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, Bobby Abreu, Helton, Sheffield, Delgado, Vlad, Giambi, and Pujols without looking.

Subtract Thome, and Giambi and add Cabrera and Tejada.

Banix12
12-19-2005, 11:13 PM
I think Baker would be a fine addition for the Sox, but the Twins would never give him to us. We would be more likely to take a flier on non-tender Kyle Lohse, but he would only sign if he knew he was to be in the bullpen (Vizcaino's and El Duque's spot) and the first back-up for anyone in the rotation going down. We have too many starters now.

The Twins are obviously not going to give up Liriano. He is the Brandon McCarthy of that organization. All signs point to him being the fourth starter out of Spring Training.

We could have used JC Romero probably, but it would have been unlikely that the Twins would have accepted Marte for Romero straight up.

Romero was the Marte of the Twins organization. High amount of talent but his erratic control gets him into trouble. I'm personally incredibly happy the sox never tried to get him.

I just have a hard time believing the twins would help us out right now. We would have to send them one hell of a hitter.

jerrykrause4pres
12-19-2005, 11:24 PM
Is it right to think that there won't be a Garland trade until the Sox have securely signed Contreras. It makes alot of sense that KW would wait to trade Garland until after being sure he can keep Contreras. Once that is done, I expect the offers for JG to start to come in. I still think our best bet is to trade Garland for top prospects unless they can get real impact player that is a significant upgrade at the current position (Tejada) but even then I think we are basically set in the field so I think prospects and maybe a good reliever (Brazoban, Baez?, Guardado/Soriano, Fuentes)

KRS1
12-19-2005, 11:32 PM
Is it right to think that there won't be a Garland trade until the Sox have securely signed Contreras. It makes alot of sense that KW would wait to trade Garland until after being sure he can keep Contreras. Once that is done, I expect the offers for JG to start to come in. I still think our best bet is to trade Garland for top prospects unless they can get real impact player that is a significant upgrade at the current position (Tejada) but even then I think we are basically set in the field so I think prospects and maybe a good reliever (Brazoban, Baez?, Guardado/Soriano, Fuentes)


I dont know why you have these guys in deep pink, I'd rather get a young guy for our pen who's salary we control the next few years. IE, Broxton from the Dodgers, Threets and Valdez of the Giants, Juan Morillo or Marcos Carvajal(my least favorite) from the Rox. If we could get Broxton Billingsley and Elbert from LA I would be impressed and pleased to say the least.

santo=dorf
12-19-2005, 11:53 PM
The guys in bold, I'll certainly agree with you. The other guys are arguable at best.

Giambi and Sheffield. Something about those guys, I can't remember just what, might have contributed to their success.

You've been going on and on about home field hitting, but I guess Helton (who isn't better than him anymore anyway) must not have that advantage that Castilla had.

Delgado is arguable, but I'll take Texeira.

Did you watch Giambi and Sheff hit last season? Do you still think they're on steroids?
Go back a month ago and you'll see posts from Randar, Maurice and I defending Helton's numbers and the coors Field advantage by point out his career road numbers .297/.397/.518/.915 :o: Helton's 2005 season was not as impressive as his previous years (what do you expect when you set such high standards for yourself?)
Why exactly would you take Teixeria over a guy who hit 30 homers with a .981 OPS at Dolphins' stadium?

Flight #24
12-20-2005, 12:44 AM
Did you watch Giambi and Sheff hit last season? Do you still think they're on steroids?
Go back a month ago and you'll see posts from Randar, Maurice and I defending Helton's numbers and the coors Field advantage by point out his career road numbers .297/.397/.518/.915 :o: Helton's 2005 season was not as impressive as his previous years (what do you expect when you set such high standards for yourself?)
Why exactly would you take Teixeria over a guy who hit 30 homers with a .981 OPS at Dolphins' stadium?

Because you're talking about a guy who's 25 years old. Go check Helton & Delgado & Sheffield & Giambi's stats from age 25 and note the career progression from there. Teixeira's stats are comparable to that group. He's already posted a .950+OPS, and it's not like USCF's a pitcher's park compared to Ameriquest. In fact, it's arguably a BETTER park to hit in. This guy is going to continue to get better.

samram
12-20-2005, 08:57 AM
Because you're talking about a guy who's 25 years old. Go check Helton & Delgado & Sheffield & Giambi's stats from age 25 and note the career progression from there. Teixeira's stats are comparable to that group. He's already posted a .950+OPS, and it's not like USCF's a pitcher's park compared to Ameriquest. In fact, it's arguably a BETTER park to hit in. This guy is going to continue to get better.

At age 25:

Giambi: 20 HR, 79 RBI, .355 OBP, .481 SLG, .836 OPS
Sheffield was 25 during 1994, so I multiplied by 1.7, which would give him 148 games: 46 HR, 133 RBI, .380 OBP, .584 SLG, .964 OPS. Let's not forget the accusations surrounding him too.
Delgado: 30 HR, 91 RBI, .350 OBP, .528 SLG, .878 OPS
Teixeira: 43 HR, 144 RBI, .379 OBP, .575 SLG, .954 OPS

So Sheffield was arguably better at 25, assuming he was not on steroids. However, that doesn't change the fact that I would take Teixeira if I was building a team. I just don't see why anyone wouldn't want that guy on their team.

Frater Perdurabo
12-20-2005, 09:13 AM
Because you're talking about a guy who's 25 years old. Go check Helton & Delgado & Sheffield & Giambi's stats from age 25 and note the career progression from there. Teixeira's stats are comparable to that group. He's already posted a .950+OPS, and it's not like USCF's a pitcher's park compared to Ameriquest. In fact, it's arguably a BETTER park to hit in. This guy is going to continue to get better.

Ameriquest is a different kind of hitters park than the Cell. The Cell has very small gaps and short fences in the power alleys. The ball carries well to all fields at the Cell ever since the roof was reconfigured before 2004. Consequently, the Cell inflates homer numbers but supresses doubles and especially triples.

Ameriquest has a short right-field fence but is deep from left-center to the center-field side of right-center. The park also has large gaps. However, modifications made to the park approximately seven years ago turn the prevailing southerly winds almost 180 degrees to form a "jet stream" that blows out to right-center. So, dead pull lefty power hitters hit a ton of homers over the short right field fence. Right-handed pull hitters do OK hitting to left. But LHB and RHB who hit fly balls up the middle - even those without a lot of power - get a lot of doubles and triples.

If Randar's pipedream were to come true, playing 81 games at the Cell I'd expect "Big Tex" to hit fewer doubles and triples, especially when batting left-handed, but more homers, especially when he's batting right-handed.

Flight #24
12-20-2005, 10:03 AM
If Randar's pipedream were to come true, playing 81 games at the Cell I'd expect "Big Tex" to hit fewer doubles and triples, especially when batting left-handed, but more homers, especially when he's batting right-handed.

Which is a problem exactly how? I understand that it seems extremely unlikely, and IMO might be a bigger chemistry issue than any of the other moves to date (heartless team trades good chemistry guy or just resigned franchise player within weeks of acquiring/resigning them). But Teixeira's a far far better player than anyone the Sox currently have, and one of the top players in the league.

Tragg
12-20-2005, 10:24 AM
Back to what's possible, do the Sox have any interest in Wilkerson? I'd see him more as a replacement for Podsednik than as a CF. Do we need the steals with Thome and Konerko in the lineup? I'm not sure that the Sox a)are willing to give up on steals and b)want to carry another veteran outfielder - some positions are going to have to be manned by minimum contract players to make the payroll work over the next few years. Over the next few years, Pods and Dye will likely roll off, and all of those positions won't be manned by a rookie.

spawn
12-20-2005, 10:36 AM
Back to what's possible, do the Sox have any interest in Wilkerson? I'd see him more as a replacement for Podsednik than as a CF. Do we need the steals with Thome and Konerko in the lineup?
We take speed out of the lineup and we're back to relying on 3-run homers...again. We've already been down that road. And besides, we don't know yet what we'll get from Thome, and Konerko is good for a slump or two thorughout the season.

The Deacon
12-20-2005, 10:44 AM
Wilkerson is a career .256 hitter. in 2005, He hit 11HRs, 57 RBIs and K'd 147 (career LOW) times. What does all of this mean??

Brad Wilkerson SUCKS.

Tragg
12-20-2005, 11:07 AM
Wilkerson is a career .256 hitter. in 2005, He hit 11HRs, 57 RBIs and K'd 147 (career LOW) times. What does all of this mean??

Brad Wilkerson SUCKS.I tend to agree with you. I'm trying to figure out why people rave about him.

Oh, and we relied on the homer a lot last year. Not that bad of an approach when you have impeccable pitching to support the waiting.

Jjav829
12-20-2005, 11:34 AM
Wilkerson is a career .256 hitter. in 2005, He hit 11HRs, 57 RBIs and K'd 147 (career LOW) times. What does all of this mean??

Brad Wilkerson SUCKS.
I think the love for Wilkerson comes from his walk rate. He has walked 80+ times in each of the last four season, including 106 in 2004. He also hit 32 HRs in 2004, though that dropped off to 11 last year. He's a poor man's Adam Dunn, less power obviously. Doesn't always make contact, but he will get on base and hit for a good number of doubles and HRs. The career low of 11 HRs can be attributed to the RFK factor. Wilkerson's RBI totals are going to be low because he hits leadoff for a National League team. That's not exactly a good place for driving in runs. He actually hit .283 with RISP, but had only 99 at-bats with RISP.

Wilkerson is a solid player if you look past his average and K's. He's good defensively and won't kill you on the bases. I would hardly say he sucks.

Flight #24
12-20-2005, 11:41 AM
I think the love for Wilkerson comes from his walk rate. He has walked 80+ times in each of the last four season, including 106 in 2004. He also hit 32 HRs in 2004, though that dropped off to 11 last year. He's a poor man's Adam Dunn, less power obviously. Doesn't always make contact, but he will get on base and hit for a good number of doubles and HRs. The career low of 11 HRs can be attributed to the RFK factor. Wilkerson's RBI totals are going to be low because he hits leadoff for a National League team. That's not exactly a good place for driving in runs. He actually hit .283 with RISP, but had only 99 at-bats with RISP.

Wilkerson's a solid player if you look past his average and K's. He's good defensively and won't kill you on the bases. I would hardly say he sucks.

His HR dropoff also coincided with a move to a fairly good pitchers park in RFK. His history is of being a 25-30HR guy with 15-20SB potential. Think 2004 Rowand, with a lower BA but higher OBP and good, but not GG D in CF. He can also move to 1B or RF if needed.

Personally, I'd rather stick with Anderson and get better prospects, but Wilkerson would be a solid player.

Craig Grebeck
12-20-2005, 11:56 AM
We take speed out of the lineup and we're back to relying on 3-run homers...again. We've already been down that road. And besides, we don't know yet what we'll get from Thome, and Konerko is good for a slump or two thorughout the season.

Last year we won because of pitching, not because of Podsednik. Adding Wilkerson, who gets on base more than Podsednik, would be a positive.

Stoky44
12-20-2005, 11:56 AM
Because you're talking about a guy who's 25 years old. Go check Helton & Delgado & Sheffield & Giambi's stats from age 25 and note the career progression from there. Teixeira's stats are comparable to that group. He's already posted a .950+OPS, and it's not like USCF's a pitcher's park compared to Ameriquest. In fact, it's arguably a BETTER park to hit in. This guy is going to continue to get better.

USCF doesn't use scoreboard lights to tell the home team what pitch is coming, like Ameriquest, lol. SO I say Ameriquest is more hitter friendly.

Tragg
12-20-2005, 12:26 PM
I think the love for Wilkerson comes from his walk rate. He has walked 80+ times in each of the last four season, including 106 in 2004. He also hit 32 HRs in 2004, though that dropped off to 11 last year. He's a poor man's Adam Dunn, less power obviously. Doesn't always make contact, but he will get on base and hit for a good number of doubles and HRs. The career low of 11 HRs can be attributed to the RFK factor. Wilkerson's RBI totals are going to be low because he hits leadoff for a National League team. That's not exactly a good place for driving in runs. He actually hit .283 with RISP, but had only 99 at-bats with RISP.

Wilkerson is a solid player if you look past his average and K's. He's good defensively and won't kill you on the bases. I would hardly say he sucks. That's why I like him more as a replacement for Podsednik than to crowd out Anderson. The Ks aren't good at the 2, but tolerable at the 1. I like to see the player who gets the most ABs have a little power.

Taliesinrk
12-20-2005, 12:55 PM
Last year we won because of pitching, not because of Podsednik. Adding Wilkerson, who gets on base more than Podsednik, would be a positive.

Gross...

Frater Perdurabo
12-20-2005, 04:14 PM
Which is a problem exactly how? I understand that it seems extremely unlikely, and IMO might be a bigger chemistry issue than any of the other moves to date (heartless team trades good chemistry guy or just resigned franchise player within weeks of acquiring/resigning them). But Teixeira's a far far better player than anyone the Sox currently have, and one of the top players in the league.

I'm not arguing against Randar's pipedream to offer Garland for "Big Tex." I was just trying to analyze the situation. For the record, I'd offer more than Garland if it meant getting "Big Tex" in return. :smile:

gr8mexico
12-22-2005, 03:45 PM
I dont understand why so many people in here dont like Blalock. Blalock is signed for a couple of years more then Crede they both have a good glove. Blalock has alot more room to improve then Crede. Why not trade Garland and Crede for Hank Blalock and either Thomas Diamond or John Danks. I'm sure the Rangers would do anything to get a pitcher like Garland. The team would be really balanced with Blalock in the lineup. 1.Podsednik(L) 2.Iguchi(R) 3.Thome(L) 4.Konerko(R) 5.Blalock(L) 6.Dye(R) 7.A.J(L) 8.B.Anderson(R) 9.Uribe(R). That would be a really nice lineup. Do you guys think the Sox could send Contreras instead of Garland just because Contreras is alot older then Garland? Then the Sox can trade Josh Fields and Brian Anderson for Jason Bay and some pitching prospects. I'm BORED!!!

KRS1
12-22-2005, 05:47 PM
I dont understand why so many people in here dont like Blalock. Blalock is signed for a couple of years more then Crede they both have a good glove. Blalock has alot more room to improve then Crede. Why not trade Garland and Crede for Hank Blalock and either Thomas Diamond or John Danks. I'm sure the Rangers would do anything to get a pitcher like Garland. The team would be really balanced with Blalock in the lineup. 1.Podsednik(L) 2.Iguchi(R) 3.Thome(L) 4.Konerko(R) 5.Blalock(L) 6.Dye(R) 7.A.J(L) 8.B.Anderson(R) 9.Uribe(R). That would be a really nice lineup. Do you guys think the Sox could send Contreras instead of Garland just because Contreras is alot older then Garland? Then the Sox can trade Josh Fields and Brian Anderson for Jason Bay and some pitching prospects. I'm BORED!!!

Why do people think the lefty-righty-lefty line-up all the way through equals a good balance?
Also, what planet do you live on? Bay is one of the best values for his salary in the majors and it would take A LOT more than BA and Fields to get him, let alone him AND prospects. To quote the Hawk, "where would he play."

ParisHilton'sDog
12-22-2005, 07:39 PM
I dont understand why so many people in here dont like Blalock. Blalock is signed for a couple of years more then Crede they both have a good glove. Blalock has alot more room to improve then Crede. Why not trade Garland and Crede for Hank Blalock and either Thomas Diamond or John Danks. I'm sure the Rangers would do anything to get a pitcher like Garland. The team would be really balanced with Blalock in the lineup. 1.Podsednik(L) 2.Iguchi(R) 3.Thome(L) 4.Konerko(R) 5.Blalock(L) 6.Dye(R) 7.A.J(L) 8.B.Anderson(R) 9.Uribe(R). That would be a really nice lineup. Do you guys think the Sox could send Contreras instead of Garland just because Contreras is alot older then Garland? Then the Sox can trade Josh Fields and Brian Anderson for Jason Bay and some pitching prospects. I'm BORED!!!I agree with you. Blalock would be a better choice at third than Crede and would be cheaper, too. Boras is Crede's agent and Reinsdorf would never negotiate with Boras again no matter who his client is.
Garland is lucky he's in such a good situation that he's currently in and his best days are behind him. Make the deal for Blalock.

KRS1
12-22-2005, 10:05 PM
I agree with you. Blalock would be a better choice at third than Crede and would be cheaper, too. Boras is Crede's agent and Reinsdorf would never negotiate with Boras again no matter who his client is.
Garland is lucky he's in such a good situation that he's currently in and his best days are behind him. Make the deal for Blalock.

Huh?:kukoo:
Can someone make any sense of this for me, or do I need the Texas baseball fans book of translation? Please stop this talk, Garland and Crede are both more valuable to our franchise than Hank Blalock.

Tragg
12-23-2005, 01:47 AM
I agree with you. Blalock would be a better choice at third than Crede and would be cheaper, too. Boras is Crede's agent and Reinsdorf would never negotiate with Boras again no matter who his client is.
Garland is lucky he's in such a good situation that he's currently in and his best days are behind him. Make the deal for Blalock.How's blalock cheaper? For the next 3 years, Blalock will make more money than Crede (unless Crede goes crazy with the bat, in which case he'll be 10 times better than Blalock, or unless an arbitrator goes insane). Blalock is under contract for, what 1 year after Crede hits free agency. So we have the guy for 3 years cheap. Do we really want Blalock for 4?

nodiggity59
12-23-2005, 02:18 AM
How's blalock cheaper? For the next 3 years, Blalock will make more money than Crede (unless Crede goes crazy with the bat, in which case he'll be 10 times better than Blalock, or unless an arbitrator goes insane). Blalock is under contract for, what 1 year after Crede hits free agency. So we have the guy for 3 years cheap. Do we really want Blalock for 4?

No. Crede will make at least $5mil in his final season here. Look at CPat as a comparison. In his 2nd arb year, he is set to get $3-4mil. Crede may be cheaper than Blalock this season, but the two after he'll be comparable, barring extreme performance derosion.

ParisHilton'sDog
12-23-2005, 03:41 PM
Huh?:kukoo:
Can someone make any sense of this for me, or do I need the Texas baseball fans book of translation? Please stop this talk, Garland and Crede are both more valuable to our franchise than Hank Blalock.
Garland and Crede are very valuable to this franchise, but they are as good as gone after the 2006 season. The Sox will never pay Garland what he'll be seeking and Crede's agent is Boras, enough said.

Blalock makes more than Crede now, but he has a 3-4 year deal where he maxes out at $5 million, which makes him a terrific value.

Some of you, it seems, are still learning that the ways of MLB over the past 30 years are not fan friendly. Popular players don't stay with their teams much anymore, unless that player wants to take a pay cut. And, as you know, most ballplayers follow the Benjamins.

If you want to keep pulling for Garland or Crede, I recommend that you join a fantasy league and draft them.