PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers "just for kicks" trade idea


caulfield12
12-23-2005, 11:56 PM
Mod edit: Nearly 50% of the article was simply copied and pasted. That is copyright infringement. Here's a good way to avoid such things: Give a link.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-051223rogers,1,1089061.column?coll=cs-home-utility (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-051223rogers,1,1089061.column?coll=cs-home-utility)

scope1200
12-23-2005, 11:59 PM
this is about as ridiculous as it comes

HotelWhiteSox
12-24-2005, 12:03 AM
If ever a time to use the chunks tag...

Maybe he and Sam Smith can rent MVP 05 and make ridiculous trades together

Tragg
12-24-2005, 12:19 AM
Boils down like this:

Sox Lose: Garland (Balt), Borchard (Cubs), Munoz (Cubs), Heager (Balt), Ragowsky (Cubs)

Sox Get: Bedard (Balt), Ohman (Cubs), Hill/Guzman (Cubs)

Put another way, Rogers suggests that the Sox trade Garland AND Heager for Bedard.

And then Borchard, Munoz, Ragowsky for the oft-injured Ohman and Hill/Guzman.

And the Balt/Cubs part of this trade is:

Balt sends a young pitcher, young outfielder and Tejada to the Cubs for Zambrano, Perez and Corey Patterson. This part of the deal favors the Cubs; but Baltimore gets a premium in their deal with the Sox. So, the Sox hold the bag.

LuvSox
12-24-2005, 12:40 AM
Put another way, Rogers suggests that the Sox trade Garland AND Heager for Bedard.

And then Borchard, Munoz, Ragowsky for the oft-injured Ohman and Hill/Guzman.

And the Balt/Cubs part of this trade is:

Balt sends a young pitcher, young outfielder and Tejada to the Cubs for Zambrano, Perez and Corey Patterson. This part of the deal favors the Cubs; but Baltimore gets a premium in their deal with the Sox. So, the Sox hold the bag.


Thank you for treading through that bull **** for a synopsis.

Hendu
12-24-2005, 12:53 AM
Boils down like this:

Sox Lose: Garland (Balt), Borchard (Cubs), Munoz (Cubs), Heager (Balt), Ragowsky (Cubs)

Sox Get: Bedard (Balt), Ohman (Cubs), Hill/Guzman (Cubs)

Put another way, Rogers suggests that the Sox trade Garland AND Heager for Bedard.

And then Borchard, Munoz, Ragowsky for the oft-injured Ohman and Hill/Guzman.

And the Balt/Cubs part of this trade is:

Balt sends a young pitcher, young outfielder and Tejada to the Cubs for Zambrano, Perez and Corey Patterson. This part of the deal favors the Cubs; but Baltimore gets a premium in their deal with the Sox. So, the Sox hold the bag.

Yup. And I think Garland alone is worth what we get from Baltimore/Cubs in that deal.

peeonwrigley
12-24-2005, 12:56 AM
Thank you for treading through that bull **** for a synopsis.
Kenny would wipe his butt with that trade idea.

fquaye149
12-24-2005, 02:12 AM
Kenny would wipe his butt with that trade idea.

Gross!!!!:o:

Fuller_Schettman
12-24-2005, 02:16 AM
Kenny would wipe his butt with that trade idea.

I wouldn't waste the Charmin...

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-24-2005, 03:48 AM
Mod edit: Nearly 50% of the article was simply copied and pasted. That is copyright infringement. Here's a good way to avoid such things: Give a link.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-051223rogers,1,1089061.column?coll=cs-home-utility (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-051223rogers,1,1089061.column?coll=cs-home-utility)

Puhhhleeeease, like the Cubune is going to bring a copyright infringement suit against WSI!!! Wouldn't that be precious! If they do bring such a suit, please contact me immediately, and I will offer my pro bono legal services.

HotelWhiteSox
12-24-2005, 03:53 AM
Puhhhleeeease, like the Cubune is going to bring a copyright infringement suit against WSI!!! Wouldn't that be precious! If they do bring such a suit, please contact me immediately, and I will offer my pro bono legal services.

I think I read in another thread that it already happened once, thus the reason full articles aren't posted anymore

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-24-2005, 04:22 AM
I think I read in another thread that it already happened once, thus the reason full articles aren't posted anymore

I hear there were simply threatening letters, but I could be wrong. Big deal. Pure posturing. How would such a suit go over in the media?

The Tribune ought to be more concerned about its tax dispute with the IRS over its acquisition of the LA Times. The Tax Court recently issued an opinion that went solidly against the Tribune. You can read it here:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Tribune.TC.WPD.pdf (http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Tribune.TC.WPD.pdf)

If the Tax Court's decision is upheld on appeal (the thinking amoung tax law professionals is that it WILL), then the Cubune will have tax liabilty in excess of $1.3 billion. That's B-i-l--l-i-o-n, with a "B." (Maybe this will prevent them from signing Prior to a long-term deal once his reserve clause phase is over and done!).

I guess I should watch what I am saying here, lest the Cubune want to bring a defamation action against me. But remember, TRUTH is always a defense to defamation!

Fredsox
12-24-2005, 07:45 AM
I hear there were simply threatening letters, but I could be wrong. Big deal. Pure posturing. How would such a suit go over in the media?



Yeah, but if we don't post the full articles PHG & Co. don't have to deal with it at all. Just because he would have a strong legal position doesn't mean he wants to go through all the BS.

TornLabrum
12-24-2005, 08:29 AM
Puhhhleeeease, like the Cubune is going to bring a copyright infringement suit against WSI!!! Wouldn't that be precious! If they do bring such a suit, please contact me immediately, and I will offer my pro bono legal services.

If the poster doesn't know how to post a link, I'll be glad to teach him/her. If we didn't have this policy, you'd probably end up seeing half the sports sections of all the Chicago area papers posted here during baseball season. And yeah, there probably would be a lawsuit over that.

bigfoot
12-24-2005, 08:55 AM
Boils down like this:

Sox Lose: Garland (Balt), Borchard (Cubs), Munoz (Cubs), Heager (Balt), Ragowsky (Cubs)

Sox Get: Bedard (Balt), Ohman (Cubs), Hill/Guzman (Cubs)

Put another way, Rogers suggests that the Sox trade Garland AND Heager for Bedard.

And then Borchard, Munoz, Ragowsky for the oft-injured Ohman and Hill/Guzman.

And the Balt/Cubs part of this trade is:

Balt sends a young pitcher, young outfielder and Tejada to the Cubs for Zambrano, Perez and Corey Patterson. This part of the deal favors the Cubs; but Baltimore gets a premium in their deal with the Sox. So, the Sox hold the bag.

Looks like PR has received his Xmas presents from his friends in NM. The peyote must have been good again this year!
:supernana:

DrCrawdad
12-24-2005, 08:57 AM
If the poster doesn't know how to post a link, I'll be glad to teach him/her. If we didn't have this policy, you'd probably end up seeing half the sports sections of all the Chicago area papers posted here during baseball season. And yeah, there probably would be a lawsuit over that.

It suits me just fine to post either just a link or a brief quote from an article.

TornLabrum
12-24-2005, 09:00 AM
It suits me just fine to post either just a link or a brief quote from an article.

And I might add to that brief is a lot less than 40-50%. I think the guidelines are something like a limit of 10% of the article may be used as quotes.

FarWestChicago
12-24-2005, 09:27 AM
Puhhhleeeease, like the Cubune is going to bring a copyright infringement suit against WSI!!! Wouldn't that be precious! If they do bring such a suit, please contact me immediately, and I will offer my pro bono legal services.They have contacted us in the past. Though you might relish the thought of going to court, we don't. Our choice, and we make the rules.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 10:07 AM
Yup. And I think Garland alone is worth what we get from Baltimore/Cubs in that deal.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But Garland's got a big salary. And he's a free agent after the season. So in the big boy world of baseball, young, cheap, left-handed fireballers like Bedard are worth two or three Jon Garlands.

voodoochile
12-24-2005, 10:10 AM
Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But Garland's got a big salary. And he's a free agent after the season. So in the big boy world of baseball, young, cheap, left-handed fireballers like Bedard are worth two or three Jon Garlands.
What? 2 or 3?

I gues that depends on whether money is THE primary issue. If it is, then you have a point, but since the Sox can afford Garland this season and probably for many seasons to come if they so choose, the trade doesn't make sense.

The Sox should only deal Garland for a huge bat for either CF or SS.

Tragg
12-24-2005, 10:14 AM
Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But Garland's got a big salary. And he's a free agent after the season. So in the big boy world of baseball, young, cheap, left-handed fireballers like Bedard are worth two or three Jon Garlands.
To a small market team that can't afford a signficant salary they are. But Garland's production exceeds Bedard's, and by a wide margin.

MarySwiss
12-24-2005, 10:16 AM
And I might add to that brief is a lot less than 40-50%. I think the guidelines are something like a limit of 10% of the article may be used as quotes.

Good point, Hal. Also, what constitutes copyright infringement really is subjective. If the copyright holder did decide to pursue the matter, the judge would make the determination. I remember discussing the issue with the head of the permissions department of a major publishing company I worked for, and she basically said that "fair use" could vary widely. That's why some of the larger publishing companies have entire permissions departments.

It also depends on the amount of text being copied. So 10% of an article might be considered fair use, whereas a chapter of a book almost certainly would not be. Another point to keep in mind is that newspaper articles are not the only things that are protected by copyright; so are songs, poems, commercial jingles, etc. Also, just because a thing is printed on the Internet, that does not mean it can be copied in its entirety, although in my work, I've seen people who are professional writers do just that!

In other words, it's probably best to copy as little text as possible. Especially when you can just post a link.

caulfield12
12-24-2005, 10:25 AM
What? 2 or 3?

I gues that depends on whether money is THE primary issue. If it is, then you have a point, but since the Sox can afford Garland this season and probably for many seasons to come if they so choose, the trade doesn't make sense.

The Sox should only deal Garland for a huge bat for either CF or SS.

Yes, the Sox can afford $7-8 million this season, but there's absolutely no way they can keep BOTH Contreras and Garland. Garland will get more money and a longer contract, we know that much.

I think KW wants to pare down the payroll to $90 million so he has the flexibility to go out and do some things at the July 31st deadline. Right now, we're projecting a little over budget at $95, from everything I've heard.

We're not going to get an upgrade over Uribe at SS for Garland. It would take more than that. CF is possible...but it's much more likely we would end up with a Dave Roberts or Mark Kotsay (as part of a Zito deal) than a huge impact player with a big salary ($10 million and up).

We also have Mackowiak that can adequately play all the OF positions, and Borchard, not to mention some players out there like Eric Byrnes that could be more attractive options than Joe B.

voodoochile
12-24-2005, 10:30 AM
Yes, the Sox can afford $7-8 million this season, but there's absolutely no way they can keep BOTH Contreras and Garland. Garland will get more money and a longer contract, we know that much.

I think KW wants to pare down the payroll to $90 million so he has the flexibility to go out and do some things at the July 31st deadline. Right now, we're projecting a little over budget at $95, from everything I've heard.

We're not going to get an upgrade over Uribe at SS for Garland. It would take more than that. CF is possible...but it's much more likely we would end up with a Dave Roberts or Mark Kotsay (as part of a Zito deal) than a huge impact player with a big salary ($10 million and up).

We also have Mackowiak that can adequately play all the OF positions, and Borchard, not to mention some players out there like Eric Byrnes that could be more attractive options than Joe B.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I don't want to worry about the 2007 season until next year same time. 2006 is set up to be a great team. The pitching is deeper than I have ever seen on the Sox. No need to rush into a deal for a young kid when there are still veteran players available. Heck, they could make a deal at the trade deadline for a big bat either with a team who is out of it and wants to cut some salary and/or take a chance on signing Jose or Jon to a long term deal or to a NL club with an excess of hitting and a shortage of pitching who thinks they can make a late season push.

Time is on our side at the moment and the Sox are holding the unheard of poker hand 6 aces. No need to rush, let's see if anyone will fold cheap before we rush to fold our bluff...

munchman33
12-24-2005, 10:39 AM
To a small market team that can't afford a signficant salary they are. But Garland's production exceeds Bedard's, and by a wide margin.

Last year, yes. But Garland's only been good for one year. And Bedard's ceiling is WAY higher.

Let's put it this way. If you were in the market for a starting pitcher on the trade market, it would cost you significantly more to pick up Eric Bedard.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 10:41 AM
What? 2 or 3?

I gues that depends on whether money is THE primary issue. If it is, then you have a point, but since the Sox can afford Garland this season and probably for many seasons to come if they so choose, the trade doesn't make sense.

The Sox should only deal Garland for a huge bat for either CF or SS.

Salary is always the issue. Why spend big money on Garland when you have cheap, viable options? Bedard is going to be a stud. He's already showed flashes. Take that money and spend it elsewhere.

Hendu
12-24-2005, 11:05 AM
Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But Garland's got a big salary. And he's a free agent after the season. So in the big boy world of baseball, young, cheap, left-handed fireballers like Bedard are worth two or three Jon Garlands.

I think some people are really undervaluing Garland. How many healthy 18-game winners entering their prime are currently available? If all we can get for Garland is an oft-injured pitcher straight up, it'd be better to hold off trading him until the deadline or not trading him at all.

It's easy to overlook this, but Garland and Bedard are the same age. Garland has proven that he can eat innings, stay healthy and win games in the regular season AND playoffs. Bedard hasn't.

Bedard is worth 2 or 3 Garlands? :?: Look, I understand the contract status etc, but if the A's can get Haren plus 2 prospects for Mulder, I think we should expect at least that type of deal, considering Garland's age. And Haren >> Bedard

Hendu
12-24-2005, 11:08 AM
Last year, yes. But Garland's only been good for one year. And Bedard's ceiling is WAY higher.

Let's put it this way. If you were in the market for a starting pitcher on the trade market, it would cost you significantly more to pick up Eric Bedard.

How is Bedard's ceiling WAY higher? They're the same age.

RoobarbPie
12-24-2005, 11:10 AM
How is Bedard's ceiling WAY higher? They're the same age.

I was thinking the same thing.......and Jon hasn't been on the DL before. Bedard started the season hot, but so did Garland. Have we all forgotten that?

munchman33
12-24-2005, 11:18 AM
I think some people are really undervaluing Garland. How many healthy 18-game winners entering their prime are currently available? If all we can get for Garland is an oft-injured pitcher straight up, it'd be better to hold off trading him until the deadline or not trading him at all.

It's easy to overlook this, but Garland and Bedard are the same age. Garland has proven that he can eat innings, stay healthy and win games in the regular season AND playoffs. Bedard hasn't.

Bedard is worth 2 or 3 Garlands? :?: Look, I understand the contract status etc, but if the A's can get Haren plus 2 prospects for Mulder, I think we should expect at least that type of deal, considering Garland's age. And Haren >> Bedard

Mulder had a career track record way better than Garland's. He was a perenial Cy Young candadite. He had ace billing. And he's left-handed. Of course they got a ton for him.

Bedard's ceiling is higher because his stuff is better. And he's left-handed. There's a reason why everyone dealing with the Orioles is asking for him in return.

And you have to realize that there's probably no chance of retaining Garland past this year. Because if he tests the market, like he says he's going to, he will end up getting something crazy like $15 million per year from a pitching starved team. So our rotation can include Garland for a year, or Bedard for at least the next three. And Bedard and McCarthy can fight for the fifth starter spot. And in a year, if Contreras walks, they can both fill in.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 11:47 AM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I don't want to worry about the 2007 season until next year same time. 2006 is set up to be a great team. The pitching is deeper than I have ever seen on the Sox. No need to rush into a deal for a young kid when there are still veteran players available. Heck, they could make a deal at the trade deadline for a big bat either with a team who is out of it and wants to cut some salary and/or take a chance on signing Jose or Jon to a long term deal or to a NL club with an excess of hitting and a shortage of pitching who thinks they can make a late season push.

Time is on our side at the moment and the Sox are holding the unheard of poker hand 6 aces. No need to rush, let's see if anyone will fold cheap before we rush to fold our bluff...

I'd rather have sustainability than taking one more shot. We won the big one. We can take another shot next year, but not at the expense of the future. We need to change our mindsets now. 1917 means nothing now. We haven't won a title since 2005 (God, I like saying that). Let's setup for a run each of the next ten years. Not just next year.

TornLabrum
12-24-2005, 11:59 AM
I'd rather have sustainability than taking one more shot. We won the big one. We can take another shot next year, but not at the expense of the future. We need to change our mindsets now. 1917 means nothing now. We haven't won a title since 2005 (God, I like saying that). Let's setup for a run each of the next ten years. Not just next year.

Now here's a person after my own heart. Can you say dynasty?

Hendu
12-24-2005, 12:07 PM
Mulder had a career track record way better than Garland's. He was a perenial Cy Young candadite. He had ace billing. And he's left-handed. Of course they got a ton for him.

Bedard's ceiling is higher because his stuff is better. And he's left-handed. There's a reason why everyone dealing with the Orioles is asking for him in return.

And you have to realize that there's probably no chance of retaining Garland past this year. Because if he tests the market, like he says he's going to, he will end up getting something crazy like $15 million per year from a pitching starved team. So our rotation can include Garland for a year, or Bedard for at least the next three. And Bedard and McCarthy can fight for the fifth starter spot. And in a year, if Contreras walks, they can both fill in.

I do like Bedard's stuff, but it's the injury problems that concern me. We all know about the guy on the other side of town who has great stuff but can't stay healthy. As for ceilings, I'd say that winning 18 games and pitching a CG on the road in the ALCS is a pretty high ceiling, which Garland has already reached at age 25. Will Bedard ever win 18 games and pitch well in the playoffs? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm also not putting Garland in Mulder's class, but we're also not talking about a guy as good as Haren as the centerpiece. I'm just saying that Garland is worth Bedard plus a top prospect, or a couple good prospects.

Trading JG for Bedard straight up would be selling Jon way short. A lot of teams (the O's included) are desperate for a proven innings eater who can win big games and is just entering his prime, even if it's a one-year rental. Plus I doubt Jon would turn down a guaranteed deal around 3/30 (probably more than the Sox are willing to pay), then cash in even bigger in a few years when he's still in his prime, so he's most likely not unsignable.

Luckily for Sox fans, the team controls its own destiny with any potential Garland trade. We're not desperate to fill holes or dump salary. So it wouldn't surprise me if KW lets this thing play out for a bit unless he's wowed by an offer. We all know how KW operates...sell high and buy low. This trade, unless we got some good prospects or Miguel Tejada as well, would seem like the opposite of KW's m.o.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 12:54 PM
I do like Bedard's stuff, but it's the injury problems that concern me. We all know about the guy on the other side of town who has great stuff but can't stay healthy. As for ceilings, I'd say that winning 18 games and pitching a CG on the road in the ALCS is a pretty high ceiling, which Garland has already reached at age 25. Will Bedard ever win 18 games and pitch well in the playoffs? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm also not putting Garland in Mulder's class, but we're also not talking about a guy as good as Haren as the centerpiece. I'm just saying that Garland is worth Bedard plus a top prospect, or a couple good prospects.

Trading JG for Bedard straight up would be selling Jon way short. A lot of teams (the O's included) are desperate for a proven innings eater who can win big games and is just entering his prime, even if it's a one-year rental. Plus I doubt Jon would turn down a guaranteed deal around 3/30 (probably more than the Sox are willing to pay), then cash in even bigger in a few years when he's still in his prime, so he's most likely not unsignable.

Luckily for Sox fans, the team controls its own destiny with any potential Garland trade. We're not desperate to fill holes or dump salary. So it wouldn't surprise me if KW lets this thing play out for a bit unless he's wowed by an offer. We all know how KW operates...sell high and buy low. This trade, unless we got some good prospects or Miguel Tejada as well, would seem like the opposite of KW's m.o.

I get ya. Though Bedard isn't as injury troubled as you think. And I don't think Garland will accept 3 years/$30 million. And he shouldn't, because his market value is a lot higher than that. Probably would take at least 3 years/$36 million. If he isn't already thinking 4-5 years. And I don't see any of that happening.

In a trade between the two, Bedard and prospects for Garland makes sense. However, Bedard would net you significantly more prospects than Garland would if they both were simply out there for other teams to bid on. That's all I was saying.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 12:56 PM
Now here's a person after my own heart. Can you say dynasty?

Yeah, I'm thinking Atlanta Braves-like dominance. Winning only the one series would be tough, but you can't argue with a perrenial division championship and a good shot every year.

Daver
12-24-2005, 01:03 PM
I get ya. Though Bedard isn't as injury troubled as you think. And I don't think Garland will accept 3 years/$30 million. And he shouldn't, because his market value is a lot higher than that. Probably would take at least 3 years/$36 million. If he isn't already thinking 4-5 years. And I don't see any of that happening.

In a trade between the two, Bedard and prospects for Garland makes sense. However, Bedard would net you significantly more prospects than Garland would if they both were simply out there for other teams to bid on. That's all I was saying.

Garland's value will be at it's highest in July, when teams that think they can be in the race will overpay for starting pitching.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 01:13 PM
Garland's value will be at it's highest in July, when teams that think they can be in the race will overpay for starting pitching.

That's very true. But what kind of message would it send to the fans and the team to trade a Jon Garland in the middle of the season, when we're in the middle of the playoff hunt. Not exactly the best P.R. move to spin him off for good, young, cheap players then. It makes baseball sense, but it would be public suicide. Remember the White flag fiasco?

If a deal's gonna get done, it needs to be before the season.

Daver
12-24-2005, 01:19 PM
That's very true. But what kind of message would it send to the fans and the team to trade a Jon Garland in the middle of the season, when we're in the middle of the playoff hunt. Not exactly the best P.R. move to spin him off for good, young, cheap players then. It makes baseball sense, but it would be public suicide. Remember the White flag fiasco?

If a deal's gonna get done, it needs to be before the season.

Do you really think KW cares about PR?

He has proven that he makes moves in the interest of fielding the best team possible, and the Sox we're not the defending champions in 1997.

munchman33
12-24-2005, 01:38 PM
Do you really think KW cares about PR?

He has proven that he makes moves in the interest of fielding the best team possible, and the Sox we're not the defending champions in 1997.

I think Kenny is very sensative and receptive to what the fans think and feel. That's part of the reason he makes the big splash deals that he does.

But if he spins off Garland in the middle of the season, it will be for someone to help the team next year, and help more than Garland can. Perhaps even another guy that'll be a free agent at the end of the year.

If he spins Garland off now, he can get someone locked up and unproven, but with a lot of potential, like Bedard, and get away with it.

Tragg
12-24-2005, 05:31 PM
Last year, yes. But Garland's only been good for one year. And Bedard's ceiling is WAY higher.

Let's put it this way. If you were in the market for a starting pitcher on the trade market, it would cost you significantly more to pick up Eric Bedard.
If you exclude last year, Garland is still the far more productive pitcher.


It's time he hit his ceiling.

It's not like Garland throws softballs up there.

Tragg
12-24-2005, 05:33 PM
I'd rather have sustainability than taking one more shot. We won the big one. We can take another shot next year, but not at the expense of the future. We need to change our mindsets now. 1917 means nothing now. We haven't won a title since 2005 (God, I like saying that). Let's setup for a run each of the next ten years. Not just next year.

Good answer
Good answer
I like the way you think, munchman

bigfoot
12-24-2005, 06:38 PM
.... So in the big boy world of baseball, young, cheap, left-handed fireballers like Bedard are worth two or three Jon Garlands.


Munch, I'm surprised you haven't thought of the obvious solution here.
1)Trade one of the three Garlands for Bedard
2)Save one of the others for the July trading bait-trap
3)Pay the real good one the extra $ from the season ticket sales!
4)Dynasty secured, win as many as possible!!!

Add teal where necessary......

voodoochile
12-24-2005, 10:25 PM
I'd rather have sustainability than taking one more shot. We won the big one. We can take another shot next year, but not at the expense of the future. We need to change our mindsets now. 1917 means nothing now. We haven't won a title since 2005 (God, I like saying that). Let's setup for a run each of the next ten years. Not just next year.

Yes, but 4 starting pitchers are signed through 2007 already, so it's not like the Sox are being completely short sighted. By 2008 there should be at least a few more minor leaguers up and coming and the Sox will have money one way or another from other contracts expiring.

You want to make this a permanent big time team in terms of salary level, the way to do that is to consistenly be WS favorites. That starts in 2006.

Pureone
12-24-2005, 10:34 PM
How does this help the Sox in any way?