PDA

View Full Version : Latest silly rumor from Boston Globe ( involves White Sox )


Fenway
12-23-2005, 09:30 AM
Why would the White Sox even consider this?

Millwood to the Red Sox seems to be heating up however
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/23/sox_on_the_lookout/?page=full


For now, the Orioles' talks with the Cubs are more advanced than with anyone else, though sources on both sides said nothing was imminent last night. There has been talk, as there is wont to be in these matters, of various three- or four-team scenarios, the most ambitious rumor one in which the Orioles would wind up with Ramírez and White Sox pitcher Jon Garland, the Cubs would get Tejada, the White Sox would get Bedard, and the Red Sox would receive Prior. That sounds like it belongs in the ho, ho, ho category, however.

RoobarbPie
12-23-2005, 09:41 AM
It depends on what prospects would be included from Balt/Boston/Flubs. If Loewen (sp?) was in there, then Bedard + prospects doesn't look too shabby. I'm not sure that we really need Bedard to bring us back up to 6 starters though....





Why would the White Sox even consider this?

Millwood to the Red Sox seems to be heating up however
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/23/sox_on_the_lookout/?page=full

Baby Fisk
12-23-2005, 09:41 AM
Just seeing that combination of teams is sordid. Yeechh.

Norberto7
12-23-2005, 09:57 AM
Orioles get Ramirez and Garland for Bedard? :rolleyes:

chaerulez
12-23-2005, 09:58 AM
The White Sox get Bedard for Garland? No thanks, unless they want to throw in Hayden Penn.

RoobarbPie
12-23-2005, 10:09 AM
The White Sox get Bedard for Garland? No thanks, unless they want to throw in Hayden Penn.

I don't think Kenny would do this unless there were high level prospects in the deal like Penn or Loewen or any Red Sox pitchers they have left.

This is all fantasy baseball - how often do 4 team deals get done in MLB?

Tragg
12-23-2005, 10:27 AM
Orioles get Ramirez and Garland for Bedard? :rolleyes:
I would guess they lose Tejada as well.

It's a reasonably fair deal for Baltimore and the Cubs. The Sox get the short end of the stick and the RedSox underpay - there's no way they can swing a Prior for Ramirez.

ode to veeck
12-23-2005, 10:46 AM
what's the score!?!?

Jjav829
12-23-2005, 10:57 AM
Interesting. The Baltimore Sun today reports,

The Orioles are interested in White Sox right-hander Jon Garland, who is a free agent after this season, and had some talks with Chicago last week in a deal that didn't include Tejada, according to industry sources. However, the White Sox wanted Bedard, instead of pitching prospects in the deal, and the Orioles balked.

The Sun also says,


The Boston Red Sox, Houston Astros, New York Mets, Chicago White Sox and Los Angeles Angels also reportedly have interest in Tejada, though to this point, none has come close to matching the Orioles' asking price. The Orioles have no interest in trading Tejada within the division to the Red Sox, but it is not impossible, according to a team source, that the club could get Red Sox slugger Manny Ramirez in a three- or four-team deal without trading Tejada to Boston.

santo=dorf
12-23-2005, 11:33 AM
Trade for Tejada and then force Hendry to trade Prior to the Sox for him.

I would trade Garland for Bedard just for the fact we would control him for much longer.

Chicken Dinner
12-23-2005, 11:45 AM
We can't trade anyone else because then we would have to endure another "appreciation thread"

munchman33
12-23-2005, 11:53 AM
I'd take Bedard for Garland. He's not there yet, but he's gonna be an absolute stud. Throw McCarthy in the rotation this year, keep Bedard in the pen. Then let Jose walk after this year. We'll still be stacked next year, when Bedard is ready to take over. And we'll save a little money, too.

This would be the kind of move to ensure we continue to win for years on end. Get it done, Kenny.

Norberto7
12-23-2005, 11:53 AM
I would guess they lose Tejada as well.

It's a reasonably fair deal for Baltimore and the Cubs. The Sox get the short end of the stick and the RedSox underpay - there's no way they can swing a Prior for Ramirez.

:redface: Ok, that makes twice the sense...but in this rumor, twice zero remains zero...

miker
12-23-2005, 11:55 AM
We can't trade anyone else because then we would have to endure another "appreciation thread"
:rolling:

oeo
12-23-2005, 12:32 PM
The Cubs only give up Prior for Tejada...what a load of BS that is.

But anyway, if this did fall through, the Cubs have an even bigger hole in their rotation...I just don't see even the Cubs going through with this unless they get a pitcher in return as well.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-23-2005, 12:44 PM
You guys wouldn't trade Jon Garland for Erik Bedard straight up? If I were Kenny, where do I sign??? Can you imagine Bedard with Mark Buehrle as his tutor? Me likes!

A. Cavatica
12-23-2005, 12:45 PM
I'd prefer Bedard, because he'd give us a second lefty starter, and he's cheaper and under control for longer. He also appears to be on track to be at least as good a pitcher as Garland.

Baltimore obviously inquired about Garland, found the asking price too high, and backed off. Bedard doesn't address an immediate need enough for us to suggest Garland+a prospect, so this idea's probably done. Good for Kenny.

ParisHilton'sDog
12-23-2005, 02:52 PM
Trade for Tejada and then force Hendry to trade Prior to the Sox for him.

I would trade Garland for Bedard just for the fact we would control him for much longer.I'd also rather have Bedard than Garland, but I'm sure you're going to get hammered for that suggestion on here.

ParisHilton'sDog
12-23-2005, 02:53 PM
We can't trade anyone else because then we would have to endure another "appreciation thread"Has there been a Gio Gonzalez thread yet?
By the way, how much are the wings at McDuffy's now?

ParisHilton'sDog
12-23-2005, 02:54 PM
I'd take Bedard for Garland. He's not there yet, but he's gonna be an absolute stud. Throw McCarthy in the rotation this year, keep Bedard in the pen. Then let Jose walk after this year. We'll still be stacked next year, when Bedard is ready to take over. And we'll save a little money, too.

This would be the kind of move to ensure we continue to win for years on end. Get it done, Kenny.
Some of you guys are really thinking on here.

Tragg
12-23-2005, 03:15 PM
Lifetime record of 12-18, 4.5 ERA, 1.5 WHIP, never pitched more than 142 innings.

What's so studly?

beckett21
12-23-2005, 03:48 PM
Lifetime record of 12-18, 4.5 ERA, 1.5 WHIP, never pitched more than 142 innings.

What's so studly?

What was so studly about Garland's career before last year? Furthermore, what makes you so sure he is going to continue to pitch at that same high level?

If he does, he will be unaffordable, therefore unsignable so we will lose him. If he doesn't, then everyone will be disappointed with him. The Sox are pretty much in a no-win situation with Garland. They can only get so much for him since they only control him for 2006. Teams aren't going to break the bank trading for him unless they can also lock him up for a few years.

Bedard is a highly regarded talent. He showed flashes of brilliance last season before an injury slowed him down. He is still very young, and I'm sure you are aware it takes pitchers a little longer to develop at the major league level than hitters, generally speaking. Last season was really his first as a regular starter.

I agree with munchman and I think this would be a nice move if KW could get it done. Brilliant, perhaps. I don't think Baltimore will part with Bedard though.

Do you expect KW to get Roy Oswalt or Johan Santana for one year of Garland? I don't think that is going to happen, at least not in this lifetime.

KRS1
12-23-2005, 04:04 PM
What was so studly about Garland's career before last year? Furthermore, what makes you so sure he is going to continue to pitch at that same high level?

If he does, he will be unaffordable, therefore unsignable so we will lose him. If he doesn't, then everyone will be disappointed with him. The Sox are pretty much in a no-win situation with Garland. They can only get so much for him since they only control him for 2006. Teams aren't going to break the bank trading for him unless they can also lock him up for a few years.

Bedard is a highly regarded talent. He showed flashes of brilliance last season before an injury slowed him down. He is still very young, and I'm sure you are aware it takes pitchers a little longer to develop at the major league level than hitters, generally speaking. Last season was really his first as a regular starter.



I agree with munchman and I think this would be a nice move if KW could get it done. Brilliant, perhaps. I don't think Baltimore will part with Bedard though.

Do you expect KW to get Roy Oswalt or Johan Santana for one year of Garland? I don't think that is going to happen, at least not in this lifetime.

If nothing else he was reliable in that he pitched over 200 innings, and flashed signs of brilliance, between blow ups of course. Eric Bedard is basically a poor man's Buehrle but much much less reliable. He gets hurt doesnt throw hard and gets knocked around the park in more starts than you think. The O's fans dont even like him because of the things I just said. If you think he's a great pitcher b/c he dominated us one game last year thats nothing special, in fact Elarton and had performance of the like just to name one.

Flight #24
12-23-2005, 04:09 PM
Bedard is a highly regarded talent. He showed flashes of brilliance last season before an injury slowed him down. He is still very young, and I'm sure you are aware it takes pitchers a little longer to develop at the major league level than hitters, generally speaking. Last season was really his first as a regular starter.


Bedard has 2 years of service time. So he's under team control for 4 more. In his 2d year, he pitched 147IP with a 4.00ERA and a less than stellar 1.38 WHIP. He also had a K/9 of almost 8 and a K/BB >2. All excellent #s to be putting up with a bad team at the age of 26. Basically, it's a LH Garland starter kit with more Ks but he's done his development in the minors rather than in the bigs ala Jon. The upside to that is that you get more of his "prime" years at cheap rates. A 1-1 deal is a fantastic move for KW. If he can also get a prospect or 2, it's a complete heist.

chaotic8512
12-23-2005, 04:23 PM
Regarding Garland for Bedard... while the prospect of having another pitcher locked up is a sweet thought, how does that help us with the pitching logjam we have for 2006? Would that mean Bedard in the bullpen? We all know McCarthy deserves and needs to be in that starting rotation... it just seems we would be in the same situation if that deal were made: 6 pitchers with only 5 spots.

Tragg
12-23-2005, 04:37 PM
What was so studly about Garland's career before last year? Furthermore, what makes you so sure he is going to continue to pitch at that same high level? . Nothing - except he had proven he could pitch a complete major league season of 5th starter quality ball, something this pitcher has yet to prove. And the fact that Garland improved has NOTHING to do with whether this pitcher will improve.

Do you think we could have gotten an 18-10 pitcher with a 3.50 ERA, a ring, and who was impeccable in the playoffs for Garland this time last year? Rent or no rent, not a chance.

Hell the Padres got a more interesting package for Adam Eaton than people expect for Garland. I don't why our players on 1 year deals are worth so little, expecially compared to other teams' 1 year contract players; maybe someone can explain how EAton is more valuable than Garland.

I like the Tejada deals. Here's my blockbuster: Contreras, Garland, Uribe for Tejada, Betard. Sign Milwood or someone.

KRS1
12-23-2005, 04:50 PM
Nothing - except he had proven he could pitch a complete major league season of 5th starter quality ball, something this pitcher has yet to prove. And the fact that Garland improved has NOTHING to do with whether this pitcher will improve.

Do you think we could have gotten an 18-10 pitcher with a 3.50 ERA, a ring, and who was impeccable in the playoffs for Garland this time last year? Rent or no rent, not a chance.

Hell, 1/2 of this board wanted to dump his a$$ - wouldn't have dreamed of a pitcher like Garland in return.

Lest we forget the clammoring to "pull the trigger" on a mere 2 month rent of Burnett, in return for Young and MCcarthy. Now that we have someone to rent, suddenly, they aren't worth very much (despite the skyrocketing pitchers' market) - we expect a pitcher who has barely proven 5th starter capable in return. Hell the Padres got a more interesting package for Adam Eaton than people expect for Garland.

I don't get it; maybe someone can explain how EAton is more valuable than Garland.

I like the Tejada deals. Here's my blockbuster: Contreras, Garland, Uribe for Tejada, Betard. Sign Milwood or someone.

Wow I hope you meant to put this in teal, trading 2 class A starters from our staff for a position we have filled with a good player (not a top 5 like Miggs but good)would be irreconcialable. If they throw in Loewen, Penn, and Ray I'd make the deal.
I'd also like to add that getting Bedard for Jon was just mentioned as an add on in a trade for the irratic Loewen and Chris Ray. I personally wouldnt mind it if this were the deal for us, but I still would rather deal with Billingsley and Broxton though neither fills the lefty gap in our pen that Loewen would.

nodiggity59
12-23-2005, 05:22 PM
My pipedream:

Cubs - Tejada
Orioles- Contreras, Garland, Pie/Cedeno
Sox- Zambrano/Prior

If the Orioles seriously want Manny, then they're dumb enough to take anything, I hope.

maurice
12-23-2005, 05:51 PM
Cubs - Tejada
Orioles- Contreras, Garland, Pie/Cedeno
Sox- Zambrano/Prior

:tealpolice:
?!?

If you're serious about this, you could accomplish the same result by offering Contreras and Garland for Prior or Zambrano and leaving the Orioles out of it. Hendry would have to be a fool to turn down such a lopsided trade.

Tragg
12-23-2005, 07:02 PM
Wow I hope you meant to put this in teal, trading 2 class A starters from our staff for a position we have filled with a good player (not a top 5 like Miggs but good)would be irreconcialable. If they throw in Loewen, Penn, and Ray I'd make the deal.
I'd also like to add that getting Bedard for Jon was just mentioned as an add on in a trade for the irratic Loewen and Chris Ray. I personally wouldnt mind it if this were the deal for us, but I still would rather deal with Billingsley and Broxton though neither fills the lefty gap in our pen that Loewen would.
Add on or not, I only care about the Sox part of the trades: Garland gone and Bedard coming here was the only part that involved the Sox. I consider that absurd. Whether that helps out the trade for the other teams is irrelevant to the Sox.

You're right - my trade was light. Need a couple of top prospects to come our way in my trade idea. I am just more interested in getting good player to the Sox - I see little point in trading quality players for flawed commodities like the usual badards, blalocks, pierres etc, unless we get good volume in return.

nodiggity59
12-23-2005, 08:22 PM
:tealpolice:
?!?

If you're serious about this, you could accomplish the same result by offering Contreras and Garland for Prior or Zambrano and leaving the Orioles out of it. Hendry would have to be a fool to turn down such a lopsided trade.

:rolleyes: If Hendry wants the privelege of paying 6/$75mil apiece to those guys, he can have them. Talent wise = lopsided Cubs. Contract/Economics wise = LANDSLIDE Sox.

beckett21
12-23-2005, 09:03 PM
If nothing else he was reliable in that he pitched over 200 innings, and flashed signs of brilliance, between blow ups of course. Eric Bedard is basically a poor man's Buehrle but much much less reliable. He gets hurt doesnt throw hard and gets knocked around the park in more starts than you think. The O's fans dont even like him because of the things I just said. If you think he's a great pitcher b/c he dominated us one game last year thats nothing special, in fact Elarton and had performance of the like just to name one.

As a matter of fact no, that's not why I think he is a *great* pitcher (your words not mine).

Bedard was 5-1 in his first 9 starts last season, with an ERA of 2.08 in 60 IP before he was injured. He ended the season poorly, but the first two months of the year he appeared to be on the verge of a breakout season.

Whether or not he is injury prone is a different story. You seem to know a lot more about him than I do. I personally won't brand him as injury-prone yet.

No one is saying Bedard is *great*. However I do think that if the Sox can spin off Garland for a young pitcher with a tremendous upside that would be a good move.

Something tells me that Garland is gone after this season no matter what. I'm all for the Sox getting as much as they can for him. I do think that they could do worse than a deal involving Bedard, who seems to be coveted by several teams.

KRS1
12-23-2005, 09:39 PM
Dont post whole article's, especially from Moronotti. Just link the page using the hyperlink button.

Wow, mods you are on your game. Cup-a-Joe to ya.

Tragg
12-23-2005, 11:03 PM
As a matter of fact no, that's not why I think he is a *great* pitcher (your words not mine).

Bedard was 5-1 in his first 9 starts last season, with an ERA of 2.08 in 60 IP before he was injured. He ended the season poorly, but the first two months of the year he appeared to be on the verge of a breakout season.
That's a plus - he shows signs of being a really good pitcher. On the other hand, he once again demonstrates an inability to pitch an entire season.
He's still unproven, and I just can't get beyond why we should expect so little for Garland, when 1 year contract players have bought a lot more than a pitching prospect, which this guy really is.

A. Cavatica
12-23-2005, 11:43 PM
I'm going to backtrack a bit and say I'm not quite so enamored with Bedard. I thought he was a "good young lefty", but he's not so young: he was born 3/5/79, making him 27 at the start of next season. In other words, he could be at the zenith of his career.

Kenny, hang on to Garland. Better deals are out there.

gowhitesox
12-24-2005, 12:42 AM
Right now, I think every team in MLB are interested in White Sox pitchers. Hang on to them for a while.

Hendu
12-24-2005, 01:26 AM
I can't see KW trading Garland for Bedard unless at least one, if not two of the O's top prospects are included. How many 18-game winners are available right now?
Why do people think that the Flubs can get Tejada for Prior, but we can only get Bedard for Garland? :?:

kevin57
12-24-2005, 08:45 AM
We can't trade anyone else because then we would have to endure another "appreciation thread"

Yes! to Appreciation Threads (especially the Official ones).
Not to be tealed, please.

Ward Hershberger
12-24-2005, 02:22 PM
I'm going to backtrack a bit and say I'm not quite so enamored with Bedard. I thought he was a "good young lefty", but he's not so young: he was born 3/5/79, making him 27 at the start of next season. In other words, he could be at the zenith of his career.

Kenny, hang on to Garland. Better deals are out there.

Expect Garland is going to have a big year in '06 - might as well be in a Sox uniform. If he walks, we sign somebody else for '07 and beyond. Lose a FA, gain a FA - Same as a trade.