PDA

View Full Version : Sox (Red & White) talking trade


Pages : [1] 2

otis
11-29-2006, 08:05 AM
Boston and the Sox are in a three way trade discussion with another AL team (Believed to be Anaheim or Texas) centering around Manny Ramirez. I don't even know which team Manny is intended for right now. That is all I have, I'll post more as I hear.

DaveIsHere
11-29-2006, 08:07 AM
Boston and the Sox are in a three way trade discussion with another AL team (Believed to be Anaheim or Texas) centering around Manny Ramirez. I don't even know which team Manny is intended for right now. That is all I have, I'll post more as I hear.



Otis is back:D:

wdelaney72
11-29-2006, 08:18 AM
The off-season is now officially here. Welcome back, Otis. We missed you.

davenicholson
11-29-2006, 08:23 AM
http://www.fatcityartists.com/images/otisday.jpg

Otis, My Man!

infohawk
11-29-2006, 08:34 AM
Hey Otis, we missed you around here! Thanks for the scoop!

Fenway
11-29-2006, 08:35 AM
The word this morning in Boston is Ozzie is pushing for Manny to come to the White Sox. Texas, San Diego, San Francisco, Dodgers and Philadelphia also interested.

Red Sox sources say nothing will happen with Manny until Drew is signed and passes physical.

DaveIsHere
11-29-2006, 08:37 AM
The word this morning in Boston is Ozzie is pushing for Manny to come to the White Sox. Texas, San Diego, San Francisco, Dodgers and Philadelphia also interested.

Red Sox sources say nothing will happen with Manny until Drew is signed and passes physical.


BOO!!!!!!

infohawk
11-29-2006, 08:38 AM
Just speculation (for fun) to try and fill in the holes. I don't think Manny would be destined for the Sox. As good a hitter as he is, I don't think he's what Ozzie wants. The Red Sox, however, have Coco Crisp. Crisp is much more in line with what the Sox are looking for. He could likely replace Pods in left and lead off. Who else might be available in a potential deal between the the White Sox, Red Sox and Angels/Rangers?

If Manny did come, he would add to the stable of former Indians the Sox have acquired over the years. Colon, Thome, Alomar, Alomar Jr., Lofton, Belle and Riske (am I forgetting anyone?).

caulfield12
11-29-2006, 08:41 AM
The Rangers have to replace a ton of offense.

Ramirez fits in as their new LF or DH. Remember, they also dealt Mench to the Brewers.

And the Rangers have their young pitching prospects to deal.

Outside of Young, Blalock is pointless (we have two 3B) to acquire, and Texeira, but we have Konerko and Thome.

infohawk
11-29-2006, 08:49 AM
BOO!!!!!!
I see a Ramirez deal as a possibility if KW thinks the opportunity to get a speedy outfield lead-off hitter is unlikely due to lack of availability, expense or steep trade price. His thinking is ultimately about improving the club. If he can't do so through speed, he may take the "add another slugger with a high on-base percentage" route. Ramirez could be a huge addition to the team, but I really believe that KW would have to bring in someone who can bat leadoff. That person would probably be an infielder. Perhaps someone like Vizquel (another former Indian:wink:). I'm just sayin'.

Hangar18
11-29-2006, 08:49 AM
I've been having funny feelings about this trade happening ...........

DaveIsHere
11-29-2006, 08:53 AM
I've been having funny feelings about this trade happening ...........


That is what scares the crap out of me. The lineup would be scary good, but it would be a throwback to the past 7 years of HR's or nothing.

Maybe Ozzie wants him because he is a great bunter.

infohawk
11-29-2006, 08:53 AM
I've been having funny feelings about this trade happening ...........
Hey Hangar, if it does, we can expect the Trib to run a story about why the northside Ramirez is better than the southside Ramirez. I can see the byline now, "Sox Steal Cubbie Blueprint For Success By Acquiring A Ramirez."

infohawk
11-29-2006, 08:57 AM
That is what scares the crap out of me. The lineup would be scary good, but it would be a throwback to the past 7 years of HR's or nothing.
I'd have to check, but my first inclination is to think that the combined .OBP of Thome, Konerko, Dye and Ramirez would be higher than the combined .OBP of Thomas, Ordonez, Lee and Konerko. Plus, the pitching would be better than the 2001-2004 versions. The key would still be the bullpen.

Jerko
11-29-2006, 08:59 AM
Hey, Otis is back! White Sox players CC Sabathia, Ben Sheets, Darrin Erstad, Jarrod Washburn, Nomar Garciaparra, Frank Catalonotto, Eddie Guardardo, Johnny Damon, and David Ortiz look forward to hearing where they're going to be playing next season. :rolleyes:

JermaineDye05
11-29-2006, 09:00 AM
I'd have to check, but my first inclination is to think that the combined .OBP of Thome, Konerko, Dye and Ramirez would be higher than the combined .OBP of Thomas, Ordonez, Lee and Konerko. Plus, the pitching would be better than the 2001-2004 versions. The key would still be the bullpen.


not to mention a lead off hitter

ondafarm
11-29-2006, 09:02 AM
Both the Angels and Rangers have guys the White Sox do want so I would presume that Manny would go to the other team and the White Sox contribution would go to the Red Sox.

103 screwball
11-29-2006, 09:06 AM
Maybe the Sox can swing both Figgins and Ramirez in a 3 way.

Ramirez and Figgins to the Sox
Crede and Garcia to Angels
Angel prospects to Boston.

Luke
11-29-2006, 09:08 AM
Maybe the Sox can swing both Figgins and Ramirez in a 3 way.

Ramirez and Figgins to the Sox
Crede and Garcia to Angels
Angel prospects to Boston.





It sounds like the Red Sox are accepting the fact that they won't get equal value for Manny in any trade, but I still think they're going to need more than just prospects to get this done.

103 screwball
11-29-2006, 09:15 AM
Both the Angels and Rangers have guys the White Sox do want so I would presume that Manny would go to the other team and the White Sox contribution would go to the Red Sox.

That makes sense. However, KW loves the big name guys and the ex-indians. Ozzie would want Ramirez.

cf Figgins
2b Iguchi
lf Manny
rf Dye
dh Thome
1b Konerko
c AJ
3b Mackowiak
ss Uribe

That's a hell of a lineup. Maybe the Angels won't part with Santana.

LuvSox
11-29-2006, 09:19 AM
However, KW loves the big name guys and the ex-indians.


I doubt KW has ever signed a player just because he used to play in Cleveland.

JermaineDye05
11-29-2006, 09:20 AM
That makes sense. However, KW loves the big name guys and the ex-indians. Ozzie would want Ramirez.

cf Figgins
2b Iguchi
lf Manny
rf Dye
dh Thome
1b Konerko
c AJ
3b Mackowiak
ss Uribe

That's a hell of a lineup. Maybe the Angels won't part with Santana.

I think Ozzie would take Fields instead of Mack, unless you're speculating Fields is going to be part of the deal that brings Manny and Figgins.

Goose
11-29-2006, 09:27 AM
cf Figgins
2b Iguchi
lf Manny
rf Dye
dh Thome
1b Konerko
c AJ
3b Mackowiak
ss Uribe


This make me shudder...:cower: Mackowiak should never be a starting anything on this team.

oeo
11-29-2006, 09:28 AM
The word this morning in Boston is Ozzie is pushing for Manny to come to the White Sox. Texas, San Diego, San Francisco, Dodgers and Philadelphia also interested.

Red Sox sources say nothing will happen with Manny until Drew is signed and passes physical.

This makes absolutely no sense. Manny is the complete opposite type of player that Ozzie likes. He's slow, he plays bad defense, and has terrible attitude. Why the hell does he want to bring that ****head here?

103 screwball
11-29-2006, 09:29 AM
It sounds like the Red Sox are accepting the fact that they won't get equal value for Manny in any trade, but I still think they're going to need more than just prospects to get this done.

True. I admit, I don't know the Angels and Boston as well as our Sox. The Angels do have a boat load of prospects and some good bullpen arms.

How about:
Manny and Figgins to the Sox
Crede and Garcia to Angels
Shields and Angels prospects and Sox prospect to Boston?

JermaineDye05
11-29-2006, 09:31 AM
This makes absolutely no sense. Manny is the complete opposite type of player that Ozzie likes. He's slow, he plays bad defense, and has terrible attitude. Why the hell does he want to bring that ****head here?


so he can place him in centerfield and Rob at third, thus crippling the defense but creating one hell of an offense.

INSox56
11-29-2006, 09:32 AM
True. I admit, I don't know the Angels and Boston as well as our Sox. The Angels do have a boat load of prospects and some good bullpen arms.

How about:
Manny and Figgins to the Sox
Crede and Garcia to Angels
Shields and Angels prospects and Sox prospect to Boston?

no, no, and no. We get majorly screwed on that one. Figgins is NOT worth near that much and neither is Manny (especially if he doesn't fit where we want the team to go)

churlish
11-29-2006, 09:33 AM
This makes absolutely no sense. Manny is the complete opposite type of player that Ozzie likes. He's slow, he plays bad defense, and has terrible attitude. Why the hell does he want to bring that ****head here?

You left out the part about Manny being one of the greatest hitters of his generation.

I'm not saying getting Ramirez would be the right move, but if the Red Sox are looking to get rid of him for little in return, KW would be dumb not to at least consider it.

103 screwball
11-29-2006, 09:35 AM
This make me shudder...:cower: Mackowiak should never be a starting anything on this team.

He would split time with Fields until Fields was ready to win the job. A platoon of Mack/Fields wouldn't be bad offensively. Defensively I'd be concerned. Cintron can play 3rd also. Would you rather have Figgins at 3rd and sweeny/Anderson in Center? Who do you see there if Crede is part of one of the rumored deals?

oeo
11-29-2006, 09:35 AM
You left out the part about Manny being one of the greatest hitters of his generation.

I'm not saying getting Ramirez would be the right move, but if the Red Sox are looking to get rid of him for little in return, KW would be dumb not to at least consider it.

If we needed a DH, I would be for it. But Manny just makes our lineup even more power hungry, and our defense worse than it was with Pods. Ozzie likes guys who know how to play the game the right way, Manny just hits the ball.

I don't give a **** how good of a hitter he is, we don't need the guy.

Madvora
11-29-2006, 09:41 AM
From November of 2004
4. My guy thinks there is a 90% chance the SoX will get either Johnson, Zito, Mulder, or Hudson.

oeo
11-29-2006, 09:42 AM
True. I admit, I don't know the Angels and Boston as well as our Sox. The Angels do have a boat load of prospects and some good bullpen arms.

How about:
Manny and Figgins to the Sox
Crede and Garcia to Angels
Shields and Angels prospects and Sox prospect to Boston?

I'd rather we get Santana (like the rumors are saying), Shields, and Figgins. Freddy is pretty valuable on the market after the contracts SP have been getting, and Crede's value couldn't be higher right now. If we're throwing in prospects, as well, I'll take Santana and Shields. Those two fill bigger needs than Manny ever could. One of the best setup guys in the league, and a young, cheap starter with a lot of potential to go with McCarthy. Santana also makes another SP expendable, which we could possibly replace Uribe with.

Goose
11-29-2006, 09:44 AM
He would split time with Fields until Fields was ready to win the job. A platoon of Mack/Fields wouldn't be bad offensively. Defensively I'd be concerned. Cintron can play 3rd also. Would you rather have Figgins at 3rd and sweeny/Anderson in Center? Who do you see there if Crede is part of one of the rumored deals?

Certainly having Mack platoon with Fields would be a better option than having him the main 3b, but come on...this makes no sense at all. Like others have said earlier in this thread, this is NOT the team that KW and Oz want. In my opinion, you DO NOT trade Crede until Fields is 100% ready unless some deal is on the table that KW cannot say no to (like possibly an Alex Rodriguez). For my money, Manny is NOT that kind of deal as it has been proposed here. Could KW be looking to trade Thome? I don't know, but having Manny as a DH would make much more sense than what is being suggested here.

Having Manny in LF and a rookie/weak (Mack) at 3b would make the entire left side of the field vulnerable and would probably cost us more runs than Manny could make up for.

Fenway
11-29-2006, 09:57 AM
Having Manny in LF and a rookie/weak (Mack) at 3b would make the entire left side of the field vulnerable and would probably cost us more runs than Manny could make up for.

Of course at USCF Manny won't have a door he can hide in :tongue:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/images/entryphoto/080205manram.jpg

oeo
11-29-2006, 10:00 AM
Of course at USCF Manny won't have a door he can hide in :tongue:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/images/entryphoto/080205manram.jpg

I'm guessing his hair would have to go, as well. Would he stand for that? No, it would just begin the whining. :puking:

Mickster
11-29-2006, 10:03 AM
From November of 2004
Originally Posted by Otis 4. My guy thinks there is a 90% chance the SoX will get either Johnson, Zito, Mulder, or Hudson.


:rolleyes:

What is your point? Someone was wrong regarding a trade rumor? Blasphemy!!!

maurice
11-29-2006, 10:05 AM
Manny to the Sox makes no sense.

Coco Crisp, OTOH . . .

CLR01
11-29-2006, 10:17 AM
:rolleyes:

What is your point? Someone was wrong regarding a trade rumor? Blasphemy!!!

Has this "insider" ever been right? He's like Levineline only Bruce doesn't come here and pat himself on the back asking to be named poster of the year. :rolleyes:

Jerko
11-29-2006, 10:20 AM
:rolleyes:

What is your point? Someone was wrong regarding a trade rumor? Blasphemy!!!

Not just someone, but someone who claims to have an inside source with the team that some of these players are supposedly coming from and who has been wrong every damn time going on nearly 3 years now. IMO, that's even more annoying, if possible, the 1000 rumors that come up normally around here every time someone is on the market or about to become a FA. I don't blame him though, since every time he posts half the people here take it as gospel and sing his praises from the nearest hilltop..........:rolleyes:

Fenway
11-29-2006, 10:29 AM
Keep in mind Manny can veto any trade as a 10/5 man but has said he would go to the White Sox. All Gammons has said is KW called Theo and they are still talking.

If Ozzie could contain Manny's brain farts you would then have maybe the best pure hitter in baseball. Knock Manny all you want but he has never had a bad year.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:32 AM
Keep in mind Manny can veto any trade as a 10/5 man but has said he would go to the White Sox. All Gammons has said is KW called Theo and they are still talking.

If Ozzie could contain Manny's brain farts you would then have maybe the best pure hitter in baseball. Knock Manny all you want but he has never had a bad year.Manny is a DH masquerading as a left fielder. He can get away with it in Fenway, but anywhere else he'd be a disaster. And I see no reason to believe that Ozzie could stop Manny from being Manny.

chisoxmike
11-29-2006, 10:33 AM
Boston and the Sox are in a three way trade discussion with another AL team (Believed to be Anaheim or Texas) centering around Manny Ramirez. I don't even know which team Manny is intended for right now. That is all I have, I'll post more as I hear.



Ok :rolleyes:

How many of these "inside" posters have EVER been right?

DaleJRFan
11-29-2006, 10:33 AM
If KW trades for Manny, that will be two players on the Sox this season who will hit their 500th homerun, the second being Thome. Afterall, Manny is a former-Indian.

itsnotrequired
11-29-2006, 10:46 AM
If KW trades for Manny, that will be two players on the Sox this season who will hit their 500th homerun, the second being Thome. Afterall, Manny is a former-Indian.

Ex-Indian players always hit their 500th HR with the Sox. Always.

:rolleyes:

KyWhiSoxFan
11-29-2006, 10:49 AM
Manny to the Sox makes no sense. Manny to Texas, maybe. Hicks likes bashers and Manny would help them sell tickets. The Rangers have no pitching right now, and it's likely to get weaker, so they will have to score runs to be interesting to their fans. And Texas can score runs.

I could see Manny to Texas, Michael Young to the White Sox, and someone like Crede to the Red Sox. If KW thinks he's going to lose Crede anyway, changing Crede into Young would be a good move. Throw in some prospects and marginal players here and there and that may be a deal everyone could live with.

Still, if the Sox are going to lose Crede, I would much rather have the other rumored deal, getting Erwin Santana.

WizardsofOzzie
11-29-2006, 10:51 AM
Of course at USCF Manny won't have a door he can hide in :tongue:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/images/entryphoto/080205manram.jpg
Ozzie would chew him up for doing crap like that

CLR01
11-29-2006, 10:52 AM
Of course at USCF Manny won't have a door he can hide in :tongue:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/images/entryphoto/080205manram.jpg





http://whitesoxinteractive.com/chisox716/manny.jpg

Fenway
11-29-2006, 11:01 AM
According to multiple sources, the Red Sox are close to a satisfactory deal for Ramirez but still have not concocted one good enough to justify trading away David Ortiz (http://news.bostonherald.com/search/?searchSite=true&keyword=David+Ortiz&mode=all)’ primary source of lineup protection. Talks with the Angels, Rangers, Dodgers, Padres, Giants and possibly the White Sox have been productive but no team, or pair of teams, has yet come up with the proper mix of young and proven talent that the Red Sox could live with.


http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=169536


The Red Sox are doing what they do best generate hype. They have once again pushed the Patriots off the sports pages, it is all Red Sox talk on WEEI in the last week of November.

And guess what? This is all just in time for "Christmas at Fenway" where desperate fans have to enter an e-mail lottery for a chance to get buy tickets in person at the box office on December 9th and avoid the hell of tickets.com "virtual waiting room"

I really hate what the Red Sox have become. For years my favorite games were early April and May games where crowds would be 15-20,000 ( just hardcore fans ) in the cold New England nights. Now every single game is 36,000 with a good percentage of yahoos.

Goodman Sachs in reviewing the New York Times empire said in a report that the Times 75M investment in the Red Sox is now worth 150M. It doubled in 5 years. If that is true then the team is now worth $ 1 BILLION 320 MILLION.

Christmas at Fenway Saturday, Dec. 9 (http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20061127&content_id=1746429&vkey=pr_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos)
The Boston Red Sox will for the fourth straight year host "Christmas at Fenway" Saturday, Dec. 9, offering fans the opportunity to purchase 2007 Sox Pax as well as single-game tickets to 16 selected April and May games.

cheeses_h_rice
11-29-2006, 11:28 AM
http://images5.theimagehosting.com/noooo.1.gif

Fenway
11-29-2006, 11:40 AM
Buster Olney from ESPN.com tries to explain what is going on with Manny

http://media.weei.podzinger.com/archive/DaleAndHolley/2006-11-28_Buster_Olney_ESPN_MLB_beat.mp3

russ99
11-29-2006, 12:30 PM
Keep in mind Manny can veto any trade as a 10/5 man but has said he would go to the White Sox. All Gammons has said is KW called Theo and they are still talking.

If Ozzie could contain Manny's brain farts you would then have maybe the best pure hitter in baseball. Knock Manny all you want but he has never had a bad year.

The Sox had a player who couldn't field and who the media targeted as someone with a "bad attitude".

His name is Frank Thomas and he (like Manny) is one of the best hitters of all time.

I'd love to see Manny on the Sox, but only if the Carmine's eat some salary.

voodoochile
11-29-2006, 12:35 PM
The Sox had a player who couldn't field and who the media targeted as someone with a "bad attitude".

His name is Frank Thomas and he (like Manny) is one of the best hitters of all time.

I'd love to see Manny on the Sox, but only if the Carmine's eat some salary.

Not gonna happen. Manny as an absolute No-Trade clause. He probably won't accept any trade to another team unless an extension is included.

Eating salary or not, the Sox would probably have to pony up 3 years $50M minimum to get the trade to go through.

Manny is worth the two years left on his contract, but are the Sox going to give him the big money extension he craves?

Domeshot17
11-29-2006, 12:57 PM
all things considered, I am surprised by the reaction of the board to an extent. We don't want to trade for the best if not one of the top 4 hitters in baseball, but its cool to trade for an underachieving, 1 year sensation who doesnt put up good enough OBP to lead off.

Manny is 10 times the player Coco will ever.

the best part of Manny, him in LF means Uribe is gone and a new SS/Lead Off is in.

CHIsoxNation
11-29-2006, 12:59 PM
Manny to the Sox makes no sense. Manny to Texas, maybe. Hicks likes bashers and Manny would help them sell tickets. The Rangers have no pitching right now, and it's likely to get weaker, so they will have to score runs to be interesting to their fans. And Texas can score runs.

I could see Manny to Texas, Michael Young to the White Sox, and someone like Crede to the Red Sox. If KW thinks he's going to lose Crede anyway, changing Crede into Young would be a good move. Throw in some prospects and marginal players here and there and that may be a deal everyone could live with.

Still, if the Sox are going to lose Crede, I would much rather have the other rumored deal, getting Erwin Santana.

Sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

kittle42
11-29-2006, 01:59 PM
all things considered, I am surprised by the reaction of the board to an extent. We don't want to trade for the best if not one of the top 4 hitters in baseball, but its cool to trade for an underachieving, 1 year sensation who doesnt put up good enough OBP to lead off.

WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.

voodoochile
11-29-2006, 02:00 PM
WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.

Not all of us, Kittle...

oeo
11-29-2006, 02:04 PM
WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.

A-Rod...sure. Manny...no thanks.

DaveIsHere
11-29-2006, 02:07 PM
All I know is I cannot wait until Spring Training so we dont have to argue over all these rumors. The same goes for the month up to the trading deadline.

spiffie
11-29-2006, 02:10 PM
WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.
This is why there is a forehead sized dent in my desk right near my computer.

munchman33
11-29-2006, 02:17 PM
WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.


:rolling:

Hokiesox
11-29-2006, 02:22 PM
all things considered, I am surprised by the reaction of the board to an extent. We don't want to trade for the best if not one of the top 4 hitters in baseball

How many World Series did Ted Williams win? Best hitter in baseball does not equal championships. He's not a good fit on this team. The Sox have been built around defense and pitching. The pitching notwithstanding (another thread, another time), Manny doesn't have the defense the Sox require to win championships.

1917
11-29-2006, 02:25 PM
WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.

I'm with you...but if we got either of the future HOF players, we would be esatatic. And to Otis, your a good man I'm sure, but your batting .125 in the rumor department. Anyone ever think of throwing Dye, a great hustling RF in LF so he can patrol LF? then Manny could play RF....Even if we keep Pods at CF with BA....if you get a chance to get Manny, you take it

HawkDJ
11-29-2006, 02:33 PM
Has this "insider" ever been right? He's like Levineline only Bruce doesn't come here and pat himself on the back asking to be named poster of the year. :rolleyes:

If I remember correctly, he called the Magglio/Nomar deal that fell through and also stated Freddy Garcia would be acquired in July of 04 for either Borchard or Reed (turns out it was June). As for the others, deals fall through, it happens.

peeonwrigley
11-29-2006, 02:34 PM
WSI:

Doesn't want Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.

Thinks Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson are the cornerstones of any successful franchise.

:rolling:

oeo
11-29-2006, 02:37 PM
I'm with you...but if we got either of the future HOF players, we would be esatatic. And to Otis, your a good man I'm sure, but your batting .125 in the rumor department. Anyone ever think of throwing Dye, a great hustling RF in LF so he can patrol LF? then Manny could play RF....Even if we keep Pods at CF with BA....if you get a chance to get Manny, you take it

There about two billion rumors everyday...and how many actually turn into actual deals? Just because the deals never go down, does not mean that there were never talks. I'm not saying he does have a source, but we have no idea of what is going on, so you can't just write it off.

As for his 90% comment in 2004...it could have been that the Sox were pursuing those guys more than any other team. Just because they never actually made the deal, does not mean that they were not in serious discussions.

This is totally different from saying that the Sox have made the deal, like Levine likes to do.

Again, let's go over this one more time...just because teams are talking does not mean they will ever make the rumored deal. The whole problem with these rumors, is people see them and think that just because they're talking, it means it's going to happen.

There's no way of ever telling if otis really has a source, but just because only a small percentage of the rumored deals actually happened, does not mean that he does not have a source, and that talks are not going on.

kittle42
11-29-2006, 02:44 PM
And to Otis, your a good man I'm sure, but your batting .125 in the rumor department.

You're batting .000 in the English department. :D:

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 02:50 PM
How many World Series did Ted Williams win? Best hitter in baseball does not equal championships. He's not a good fit on this team. The Sox have been built around defense and pitching. The pitching notwithstanding (another thread, another time), Manny doesn't have the defense the Sox require to win championships.
I'm pretty sure his bat will offset whatever defensive woes he has.

Joosh
11-29-2006, 02:52 PM
You're batting .000 in the English department. :D:

God, I'm tired of this.


Anyways, I would be ok with Manny, but I really hate the idea of cutting defense for the long ball. Thats not how we won the World Series in 05.

Maybe you could trade Thome to make room for him as a DH, but then again I really don't want to trade Thome either.

Clarkdog
11-29-2006, 03:03 PM
If I remember correctly, he called the Magglio/Nomar deal that fell through and also stated Freddy Garcia would be acquired in July of 04 for either Borchard or Reed (turns out it was June). As for the others, deals fall through, it happens.

I also think Otis called the Podsednik/Lee deal or some version of it.

I think there something here but I think it could be a four-team, not a three team deal. Especially if Otis is right and both Sox are talking. They could orchestrate a bigger deal with themselves as the major bargainers.

It doesn't make sense wth just White Sox, Red Sox, Rangers/Angels given the rumored pieces in play - one team always ends up on the very short end. It has to include both the Ranger AND Angels to at least get close to being equitable.

My theory (for what's it's worth):

Players in the deal:
White Sox: Crede & Garcia
Red Sox: Ramirez & $$$
Angels: Figgins & Santana
Rangers: Young & "A" Pitching Prospect

Trade 1. White Sox deal Crede & Garcia to Red Sox for Ramirez & $$$
Trade 2. White Sox deal Ramirez & $$$ to Texas for Young & "A" Pitching Prospect; Red Sox deal Crede & Garcia to Angels for Figgins & Santana
Trade 3. White Sox deal "A" Pitching Prospect to Red Sox for Figgins

Players after the deal:
White Sox: Young & Figgins (Sox get SS they covet, more speed (LF solution?), and out from under big contracts)
Red Sox: Santana & "A" Pitching Prospect (Red Sox get out from under Manny get good pitching in return)
Rangers: Ramirez & $$$ (Texas gets the bopper they lack at a value)
Angels: Crede & Garcia (Angels fill gap at third and in Pitching Staff with players they covet)

1917
11-29-2006, 03:04 PM
You're batting .000 in the English department. :D:

Oh God is this because I typed your instead of you're? MERCY!! O.K. sorry Sister Margaret!!! :D:

JUribe1989
11-29-2006, 03:05 PM
I also think Otis called the Podsednik/Lee deal or some version of it.

I think there something here but I think it could be a four-team, not a three team deal. Especially if Otis is right an both Sox are talking. They could orchestrate a bigger deal with themselves an the major bargainers.

It doesn't make sense wth just White Sox, Red Sox, Rangers/Angels given the rumored pieces in play - one team always ends up on the very short end. It has to include both the Ranger AND Angels to at least get close to being equitable.

My theory (for what's it's worth):

Players in the deal:
White Sox: Crede & Garcia
Red Sox: Ramirez & $$$
Angels: Figgins & Santana
Rangers: Young & "A" Pitching Prospect

Trade 1. White Sox deal Crede & Garcia to Red Sox for Ramirez & $$$
Trade 2. White Sox deal Ramirez & $$$ to Texas for Young & "A" Pitching Prospect; Red Sox deal Crede & Garcia to Angels for Figgins & Santana
Trade 3. White Sox deal "A" Pitching Prospect to Red Sox for Figgins

Players after the deal:
White Sox: Young & Figgins (Sox get SS they covet, more speed (LF solution?), and out from under big contracts
Red Sox: Santana & "A" Pitching Prospect (Red Sox get out from under Manny get good pitching in return)
Rangers: Ramirez & $$$ (Texas get the bopper they lack at a value)
Angels: Crede & Garcia (Angels fill gap at third on in Pitching Staff with players they covet)


Man, if that's the trade (brilliantly put together by the way clarkdog), needless to say, I would be an elated Sox fan.

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 03:12 PM
Man, if that's the trade (brilliantly put together by the way clarkdog), needless to say, I would be an elated Sox fan.
I'd rather just hold onto Manny than pickup the overrated Young.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 03:15 PM
Man, if that's the trade (brilliantly put together by the way clarkdog), needless to say, I would be an elated Sox fan.Why is it that people are in a hurry to get rid of Crede because they're afraid of what he will cost when he becomes a FA in two years, but are salivating over the prospect of getting Michael Young, who will also become a FA in two years?:?:

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 03:18 PM
Why is it that people are in a hurry to get rid of Crede because they're afraid of what he will cost when he becomes a FA in two years, but are salivating over the prospect of getting Michael Young, who will also become a FA in two years?:?:
I'd also like to ask why people say no to Manny because he can't play defense, but want Young even though he is an absolute butcher.

Jerko
11-29-2006, 03:24 PM
I'd rather just hold onto Manny than pickup the overrated Young.

I like Young, but I agree; if the Sox landed Manny and then traded him, there would be an uproar. I think if they get him, they're keeping him. And one last word on Otis, well from me anyway; I did a quick check on the threads he started and I didn't find one name that he mentioned that ever played one pitch for the White Sox. And "calling the Maggs/Nomar deal that fell through" is the same as just being wrong IMO. I heard those Nomar deals for days before Otis chimed in because that's when the Red Sox were trying to get A-Rod.

Clarkdog
11-29-2006, 03:34 PM
I'd also like to ask why people say no to Manny because he can't play defense, but want Young even though he is an absolute butcher.

People are saying no to Manny becasue we'll turn back into the station to station baseball team that we had prior to 2005.

As for Young being a butcher, he was no worse than Uribe statistically despite playing 30 more games than Uribe. He also hit 80 points higher, his OBP was 100 points higher, he scored 40 more runs and drove in 30 more runs.

SoxyStu
11-29-2006, 03:37 PM
[quote=Clarkdog;1424535]
Red Sox: Santana & "A" Pitching Prospect (Red Sox get out from under Manny get good pitching in return)
quote]

I don't forsee this happening, since the Sawx already have plenty of starters (while I'll agree some starters currently on their roster are arguably worse than Santana)...Schilling, Mats (once they sign him), Beckett, Clement, Papelbon (who is in their starting rotation this upcoming year), and Wakefield. That's potentially 7 MLB starters if they land Santana?

To my knowledge, the Sawx are more desperate for a SS and relief pitching...

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 03:38 PM
The difference being the teams prior to 2005 had horrid staffs, and we have one of the top ten in baseball. Adding Manny would easily give us the best offensive team in baseball.

Young has throughout his career had a very large difference in OPS for his home/away splits. I see no reason why he'll continue his production outside of Arlington.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 03:42 PM
People are saying no to Manny becasue we'll turn back into the station to station baseball team that we had prior to 2005.There's also a small matter of some $60-80M in salary he's going to be due, which will hamstring the Sox' ability to make the improvements they actually do need.

SoxxoS
11-29-2006, 03:50 PM
at least Otis did hit on a rumor that nobody knew about...and since this site has bandwidth used by threads about the "Tenacious D" and "the most US president alive at one time" (no offense) I enjoy when otis posts, as it's -

a)Something baseball to talk about

b)coming from a source most of us don't have. Who cares if he has posted a few that haven't gone through. For all we know, they were in the final stages until something else came up. I am pretty sure his source is not KW. And if you aren't getting it DIRECTLY from the source, there are going to be times it doesn't work out. WHO CARES. Why bash him? More tenacious D threads?

DickAllen72
11-29-2006, 04:12 PM
at least Otis did hit on a rumor that nobody knew about...and since this site has bandwidth used by threads about the "Tenacious D" and "the most US president alive at one time" (no offense) I enjoy when otis posts, as it's -

a)Something baseball to talk about

b)coming from a source most of us don't have. Who cares if he has posted a few that haven't gone through. For all we know, they were in the final stages until something else came up. I am pretty sure his source is not KW. And if you aren't getting it DIRECTLY from the source, there are going to be times it doesn't work out. WHO CARES. Why bash him? More tenacious D threads?

I agree on all counts. :wink:

oeo
11-29-2006, 04:26 PM
I'd rather just hold onto Manny than pickup the overrated Young.

He's overrated? How so? I think the guy is underrated.

I'd also like to ask why people say no to Manny because he can't play defense, but want Young even though he is an absolute butcher.

He is? He had very comparable stats to Uribe last year (including a better range factor and a better fielding percentage). If he's a butcher, I guess you could say the same about Uribe, no?

at least Otis did hit on a rumor that nobody knew about...and since this site has bandwidth used by threads about the "Tenacious D" and "the most US president alive at one time" (no offense) I enjoy when otis posts, as it's -

a)Something baseball to talk about

b)coming from a source most of us don't have. Who cares if he has posted a few that haven't gone through. For all we know, they were in the final stages until something else came up. I am pretty sure his source is not KW. And if you aren't getting it DIRECTLY from the source, there are going to be times it doesn't work out. WHO CARES. Why bash him? More tenacious D threads?

Couldn't agree more. I don't get why people have such a problem with rumors. I enjoy reading about rumors, even if they are unrealistic, because I like to see what's out there. It's as close to baseball as it's going to get right now...and if you hate rumors so much, why do you read them?

Fenway
11-29-2006, 04:29 PM
Looks like NOTHING will happen before the winter meetings in Orlando next week
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/

Theo Epstein spoke to the media about all things Red Sox this afternoon in a conference call prior to next week’s winter meetings in Orlando, Florida.
The Red Sox GM refused to confirm any rumors about a Manny Ramirez trade or a possible J.D. Drew free agent signing. “I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment at this time,” said Epstein when asked about the possibility of moving Ramirez out of Boston. “Manny is obviously a big part of the team. No comment at this time unless there is something to announce.” Regarding J.D. Drew, Epstein said, “It’s not appropriate to talk about potential free agent signings. Our policy is not to talk about potential acquisitions until it’s done or not done.”

kittle42
11-29-2006, 04:39 PM
God, I'm tired of this.

Me, too. I wish it would stop.

Jurr
11-29-2006, 05:59 PM
There's also a small matter of some $60-80M in salary he's going to be due, which will hamstring the Sox' ability to make the improvements they actually do need.
Egg-zackly. Not only does this trade not make any sense with the finances involved, it makes the White Sox WAAAAYYYY to bat-heavy. There's no way you could support the amount of money our pitching staff makes with another huge bat.

The World Series is won every year with pitching. Period. It seems like everyone's gone back to salivating over huge bats and not focusing on arms.
We do have to dump one starter to make room for McCarthy, but I sincerely believe that adding another HUGE bat would make the departure of another arm a likely event. This team has a great rotation, and I really think the extended season of 2005 led to their decreased productivity. With the proper rest, this rotation will be back to dominant.

Fill in the roster holes with character guys that would actually buy into a team concept and stay away from "Manny being Manny". He's really good, but I don't think hitting homers was nearly the Sox problem last year.

CLR01
11-29-2006, 07:07 PM
at least Otis did hit on a rumor that nobody knew about...and since this site has bandwidth used by threads about the "Tenacious D" and "the most US president alive at one time" (no offense) I enjoy when otis posts, as it's -

a)Something baseball to talk about

b)coming from a source most of us don't have. Who cares if he has posted a few that haven't gone through. For all we know, they were in the final stages until something else came up. I am pretty sure his source is not KW. And if you aren't getting it DIRECTLY from the source, there are going to be times it doesn't work out. WHO CARES. Why bash him? More tenacious D threads?


Perhaps if he did come here demanding to be named "poster of the year" over some rumored deal that fell through and generally acting like some hot stove god people wouldn't bash the guy?

:dunno: Just thinking out loud.

MRM
11-29-2006, 07:27 PM
Just speculation (for fun) to try and fill in the holes. I don't think Manny would be destined for the Sox. As good a hitter as he is, I don't think he's what Ozzie wants. The Red Sox, however, have Coco Crisp. Crisp is much more in line with what the Sox are looking for. He could likely replace Pods in left and lead off. Who else might be available in a potential deal between the the White Sox, Red Sox and Angels/Rangers?

If Manny did come, he would add to the stable of former Indians the Sox have acquired over the years. Colon, Thome, Alomar, Alomar Jr., Lofton, Belle and Riske (am I forgetting anyone?).

I don't agree at all. Manny doesn't seem like a fit with Ozzies oft stated policy, but he's a guy Ozzie can relate to and possibly thinks he can control. Coco Crisp is a waste of time I can't see Kenny going after seriously. Do you want Crisp? I sure don't.

Can you possibly name a better left field replacement for Pods than Manny Ramierez? Defensively I certainly can, but overall? Can you even fathom the lineup? Last year the Sox had possibly the best lineup in their history, can you imagine adding a Manny Rameriez to it? We are now talking about one of the best lineups in the history of the game.

I say do that deal AND get ARod. It won't even matter what the pitching does, yet the Sox would still have one of the better staffs in the league.

1B Konerko
2B Iguchi

guillen4life13
11-29-2006, 07:39 PM
I don't agree at all. Manny doesn't seem like a fit with Ozzies oft stated policy, but he's a guy Ozzie can relate to and possibly thinks he can control. Coco Crisp is a waste of time I can't see Kenny going after seriously. Do you want Crisp? I sure don't.

Can you possibly name a better left field replacement for Pods than Manny Ramierez? Defensively I certainly can, but overall? Can you even fathom the lineup? Last year the Sox had possibly the best lineup in their history, can you imagine adding a Manny Rameriez to it? We are now talking about one of the best lineups in the history of the game.

I say do that deal AND get ARod. It won't even matter what the pitching does, yet the Sox would still have one of the better staffs in the league.

1B Konerko
2B Iguchi

Do I even need to say anything or was the bold enough?

Last year, having a great lineup didn't get us anything better than a third place finish. Sure, we won 90 games, but the ALCentral is now arguably the best division in all of baseball (I don't know who would argue otherwise). Three 90 win teams? That's not a common thing.

I'd rather have a good/great leadoff hitter, and more importantly, one of the best pitching staffs in history. Hitting matters, but the Sox need to address their weaknesses, not shore up their strengths.

MRM
11-29-2006, 07:42 PM
Just speculation (for fun) to try and fill in the holes. I don't think Manny would be destined for the Sox. As good a hitter as he is, I don't think he's what Ozzie wants. The Red Sox, however, have Coco Crisp. Crisp is much more in line with what the Sox are looking for. He could likely replace Pods in left and lead off. Who else might be available in a potential deal between the the White Sox, Red Sox and Angels/Rangers?

If Manny did come, he would add to the stable of former Indians the Sox have acquired over the years. Colon, Thome, Alomar, Alomar Jr., Lofton, Belle and Riske (am I forgetting anyone?).

I don't agree at all. Manny doesn't seem like a fit with Ozzies oft stated policy, but he's a guy Ozzie can relate to and possibly thinks he can control. Coco Crisp is a waste of time I can't see Kenny going after seriously. Do you want Crisp? I sure don't.

Can you possibly name a better left field replacement for Pods than Manny Ramierez? Defensively I certainly can, but overall? Can you even fathom the lineup? Last year the Sox had possibly the best lineup in their history, can you imagine adding a Manny Rameriez to it? We are now talking about one of the best lineups in the history of the game.

I say do that deal AND aggressively go after ARod if he really is available. And none of this would stop the reported deal with the Angels. It won't even matter what the pitching does, yet the Sox would still have one of the better staffs in the league.

1B Konerko
2B Iguchi
SS Arod
3B Fields
LF Ramierez
CF Figgins/Pods/Anderson...who cares.
RF Dye
C Pierzynski

Starters:

MB
Contreras
Santana
McCarthy
Garland

Might take one of those guys to make it all happen, but who wouldn't put Broadway or even Haegar at #5 in order to get that kind of offense?

Is it even POSSIBLE to build a better team than that?
In my mind, that lineup would humble the '27 Yanks. And it's possible, though not likely.

Flight #24
11-29-2006, 07:49 PM
Do I even need to say anything or was the bold enough?

Last year, having a great lineup didn't get us anything better than a third place finish. Sure, we won 90 games, but the ALCentral is now arguably the best division in all of baseball (I don't know who would argue otherwise). Three 90 win teams? That's not a common thing.

I'd rather have a good/great leadoff hitter, and more importantly, one of the best pitching staffs in history. Hitting matters, but the Sox need to address their weaknesses, not shore up their strengths.

It's not a question of addressing the pitching staff or adding a Manny. The pitching staff is what it is: They're going to lose one of the SPs and add an RP. That's a given. It's not like it's Manny or Johan Santana or something.

The question is: given the staff they currently have (minus one of the SPs), is the team better off with Pods or maybe Figgins or even Young along with Crede or with Manny (or in previous iterations of these discussions, ARod) and Fields? It's a pretty big stretch on Crede's ability to go with the former. You're talking about 2 guys in the latter scenario who are guaranteed hall of famers and who are still hitting like it.

gf2020
11-29-2006, 07:52 PM
**** it, let's bash people to death and win that way. I'd rather pay Manny for two years of crap defense and clogged bases than overpay some overrated leadoff guy for four years.

HawkDJ
11-29-2006, 08:07 PM
And one last word on Otis, well from me anyway; I did a quick check on the threads he started and I didn't find one name that he mentioned that ever played one pitch for the White Sox.


Hate to repeat myself but...Freddy Garcia.

MRM
11-29-2006, 08:12 PM
There's also a small matter of some $60-80M in salary he's going to be due, which will hamstring the Sox' ability to make the improvements they actually do need.

I have zero use for considering the financial implications. As fans we simply have NO CLUE what the team is willing to do in that area. We also don't have a clue what the deal would do.

What does Manny make? $20mil/yr? How do we know the Red Sox aren't willing to eat 5-8 mil of that in the right deal? Manny at $13-15mil is a bargain in todays market. AROD is a steal at $15mil. Now, I do question why the Red Sox would be willing to dump Manny in that fashion, but who knows. Just because he doesn't fit with them doesn't mean he wouldn't fit with the Sox.

I'm a Cowboys fan who is THRILLED that Terrell Owens is on the team so maybe I'm more forgiving than some...

mcp5185
11-29-2006, 08:25 PM
There's also a small matter of some $60-80M in salary he's going to be due, which will hamstring the Sox' ability to make the improvements they actually do need.

Actually hes due 18 million next year and 20 million in 2008. In 2009 and 2010 he has 20 million club options but who says we would exercise those options. Still a lot of money but if you subtract what Freddy and Crede make, it doesn't increase payroll all that much.

Manny can also do a lot more than hit homers. His .439 obp from last year is over 20 points higher than our best guy. His .411 career obp is better than anybody from the White Sox last year not named Jim Thome. He also would add a lot of doubles and is an rbi machine.

I don't necessarily want Ramirez but for the right deal I would have to consider it. His defense isnt that much worse than Podsedniks.

nodiggity59
11-29-2006, 08:32 PM
Ok everyone else does it so I'll post my pipedream.

Sox get:
Santana
Figgins
Manny

Red Sox get:
Angels prospect
Vazquez

Angels Get:
Crede
Garcia

Brian26
11-29-2006, 08:33 PM
Boston and the Sox are in a three way trade discussion with another AL team (Believed to be Anaheim or Texas) centering around Manny Ramirez. I don't even know which team Manny is intended for right now. That is all I have, I'll post more as I hear.


Has this "insider" ever been right? He's like Levineline only Bruce doesn't come here and pat himself on the back asking to be named poster of the year. :rolleyes:

Ok :rolleyes:

How many of these "inside" posters have EVER been right?

If I remember correctly, he called the Magglio/Nomar deal that fell through

You are correct.

Otis is a legitimate, reputable source. He was all over the Nomar/Mags deal in December of '03 before anybody even knew about it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I appreciate the information.

MRM
11-29-2006, 08:45 PM
[quote=Clarkdog;1424535]
Red Sox: Santana & "A" Pitching Prospect (Red Sox get out from under Manny get good pitching in return)
quote]

I don't forsee this happening, since the Sawx already have plenty of starters (while I'll agree some starters currently on their roster are arguably worse than Santana)...Schilling, Mats (once they sign him), Beckett, Clement, Papelbon (who is in their starting rotation this upcoming year), and Wakefield. That's potentially 7 MLB starters if they land Santana?

To my knowledge, the Sawx are more desperate for a SS and relief pitching...

That's absolutely true. And I'd offer them Jenks, Uribe, and a prospect for Manny. Offer Broadway and it's a done deal.

I'm still not sold on Bobby because his work ethic is way too unpredictable and he's been a loose cannon for years. I would trade him RIGHT NOW while the value is high. And the Sox seem to be stockpiling closer quality guys. To me they now have -at least- 3 guys who are fully capable of closing. Most teams can't point to more than one guy they are comfortable with. I'd have no problem giving that job to either McDougal or Thornton. Mickey D has done it before and Matt has to have alot more confidence after a year under the best pitching coach in the game.

Actually I think that's one of the areas NOBODY thinks of in terms of trade. If I'm Kenny, I'm playing the Jenks angle hard in ANY potential trade. Just look at the sox the last two years.

Three different guys handled that role very well and two of them have since been CUT.

All things considered I'd trade Bobby in a heartbeat.

NardiWasHere
11-29-2006, 08:45 PM
Ok everyone else does it so I'll post my pipedream.

Sox get:
Santana
Figgins
Manny

Red Sox get:
Angels prospect
Vazquez

Angels Get:
Crede
Garcia

Sox get:
Two out of the three best players in the deal plus a decent player in Chone

Angels and Red Sox get:
Screwed

You're right, pipedream.

Grzegorz
11-29-2006, 08:48 PM
The word this morning in Boston is Ozzie is pushing for Manny to come to the White Sox.

Speed, defense, fundamentals and pitching my behind; if this is true Ozzie is a hypocrite.

champagne030
11-29-2006, 08:50 PM
Why is it that people are in a hurry to get rid of Crede because they're afraid of what he will cost when he becomes a FA in two years, but are salivating over the prospect of getting Michael Young, who will also become a FA in two years?:?:

I'm not salivating at the thought of losing Crede, but I would swap them in a heartbeat. The only option we have for Uribe is Cintron, but we have a top prospect and a few other options at 3rd if Fields isn't ready. Of course none of those options are as good as Crede right now, but I would take my chances with Ozuna/Cintron/Mack at 3rd and Young at SS over Crede and Uribe (as our team is currently constructed). I understand that a Young/Crede trade would never happen without a 3rd team, but I'd take it.

Brian26
11-29-2006, 08:51 PM
Speed, defense, fundamentals and pitching my behind; if this is true Ozzie is a hypocrite.

If Manny comes to the Sox, it will be to strictly DH. Thome will be gone.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 08:53 PM
Actually hes due 18 million next year and 20 million in 2008. In 2009 and 2010 he has 20 million club options but who says we would exercise those options. Still a lot of money but if you subtract what Freddy and Crede make, it doesn't increase payroll all that much.

Manny can also do a lot more than hit homers. His .439 obp from last year is over 20 points higher than our best guy. His .411 career obp is better than anybody from the White Sox last year not named Jim Thome. He also would add a lot of doubles and is an rbi machine.

I don't necessarily want Ramirez but for the right deal I would have to consider it. His defense isnt that much worse than Podsedniks.They wouldn't have a choice. Picking up one or both of the options would be a condition of Manny waiving his no-trade clause. That's a big chunk of payroll. That extra money would also preclude significant bullpen upgrades as well as finding a better leadoff hitter. In fact, they might well have to dump some salary to pull it off. Any way you slice it, it doesn't address the Sox main problems. It wasn't a shortage of mashers that hurt them last year.

MRM
11-29-2006, 08:57 PM
Ok everyone else does it so I'll post my pipedream.

Sox get:
Santana
Figgins
Manny

Red Sox get:
Angels prospect
Vazquez

Angels Get:
Crede
Garcia

WOW.

Toss Figgins to the Bosox and that is STILL a great deal for the SOX. I'll give up Vazquez, Crede, and Garcia for Santana and Ramierez every time. When you get better offensively AND Pitching-wise in a deal, you do it. It's a no-brainer

oeo
11-29-2006, 09:13 PM
[quote=SoxyStu;1424588]

That's absolutely true. And I'd offer them Jenks, Uribe, and a prospect for Manny. Offer Broadway and it's a done deal.

I'm still not sold on Bobby because his work ethic is way too unpredictable and he's been a loose cannon for years. I would trade him RIGHT NOW while the value is high. And the Sox seem to be stockpiling closer quality guys. To me they now have -at least- 3 guys who are fully capable of closing. Most teams can't point to more than one guy they are comfortable with. I'd have no problem giving that job to either McDougal or Thornton. Mickey D has done it before and Matt has to have alot more confidence after a year under the best pitching coach in the game.

Actually I think that's one of the areas NOBODY thinks of in terms of trade. If I'm Kenny, I'm playing the Jenks angle hard in ANY potential trade. Just look at the sox the last two years.

Three different guys handled that role very well and two of them have since been CUT.

All things considered I'd trade Bobby in a heartbeat.

Are you kidding me? Yeah, let's trade our best reliever over the past one and half years, when our bullpen already sucks. :rolleyes:

You want to give the job to Thornton after one good year? I think Thornton is great, but how the hell can you say that he's better than Jenks?

He saved over 40 games last year...I'm sure it was just a fluke. Maybe you forgot...the Sox didn't make the playoffs last year. Do you remember why? They're bullpen was terrible...one guy in that bullpen was consistently good (with a couple of bad outings near the end)...he goes by the name of Bobby Jenks. We need a better bullpen next year, not a power-hitting headcase.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 09:32 PM
How many World Series did Ted Williams win? Best hitter in baseball does not equal championships. He's not a good fit on this team. The Sox have been built around defense and pitching. The pitching notwithstanding (another thread, another time), Manny doesn't have the defense the Sox require to win championships.

You are ****ing kidding right?

This thread is asinine to me.

I value defense as much as the next guy, but when you have a chance to get one of the 5 best pure hitters in the past 10 years, you take it.

Of course, who we have to give up would be important, but Hokiesox said it best (even though he wasn't trying to). Ted Williams was an ******* who didn't play good defense. I'd ****ing take Ted Williams on the White Sox.

And by the way, Manny's got as many world series rings as anyone on the White Sox right now. And he's got as many WS MVP's as anyone on the White Sox. And oh by the way, he's got MORE WS appearances than anyone on the White Sox.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 09:34 PM
They wouldn't have a choice. Picking up one or both of the options would be a condition of Manny waiving his no-trade clause. That's a big chunk of payroll. That extra money would also preclude significant bullpen upgrades as well as finding a better leadoff hitter. In fact, they might well have to dump some salary to pull it off. Any way you slice it, it doesn't address the Sox main problems. It wasn't a shortage of mashers that hurt them last year.

Where are the magical pitchers that Kenny's going to go get?

Should we spend 14 million on Jason Schmidt?

Or do we need to re-anemicize our lineup so that the pitchers "try harder" as per that ridiculous post this year where the guy said Thome makes our pitchers decide not to try to get outs

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 09:46 PM
Where are the magical pitchers that Kenny's going to go get?

Should we spend 14 million on Jason Schmidt?

Or do we need to re-anemicize our lineup so that the pitchers "try harder" as per that ridiculous post this year where the guy said Thome makes our pitchers decide not to try to get outsJenks
Thornton
MacDougal
Aardsma
Logan
Haeger

This is the way the bullpen stands right now. With this bullpen, Manny is going to have to drive in 200 runs for them to have a chance. Lack of mashers was not their problem. Pitching was. I'd much rather spend the money on pitching than another masher in the middle of the lineup. Big sluggers with inadequate pitching didn't work before and it won't work next year, either.

caulfield12
11-29-2006, 09:50 PM
Where are the magical pitchers that Kenny's going to go get?

Should we spend 14 million on Jason Schmidt?

Or do we need to re-anemicize our lineup so that the pitchers "try harder" as per that ridiculous post this year where the guy said Thome makes our pitchers decide not to try to get outs


is "anemicize" even a word?

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 09:50 PM
Jenks
Thornton
MacDougal
Aardsma
Logan
Haeger

This is the way the bullpen stands right now. With this bullpen, Manny is going to have to drive in 200 runs for them to have a chance. Lack of mashers was not their problem. Pitching was. I'd much rather spend the money on pitching than another masher in the middle of the lineup. Big sluggers with inadequate pitching didn't work before and it won't work next year, either.


a.) you're absolutely right. We need to improve the bullpen. But where are the relievers coming from? Instead of spending 8 million for a middle reliever and holding our breath he comes through, why not improve where we can in other areas when talent is available.

b.) logically, this whole "our mashing lineup wasn't good enough to overcompensate for bad pitching last year, so improving it will just mean the same thing," or "in 2003 we had a lineup that hit a lot of home runs so if we hit a lot of home runs in 2007 we will end up like 2003" doesn't really follow.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 09:50 PM
is "anemicize" even a word?

it is now.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 09:54 PM
a.) you're absolutely right. We need to improve the bullpen. But where are the relievers coming from? Instead of spending 8 million for a middle reliever and holding our breath he comes through, why not improve where we can in other areas when talent is available.

b.) logically, this whole "our mashing lineup wasn't good enough to overcompensate for bad pitching last year, so improving it will just mean the same thing," or "in 2003 we had a lineup that hit a lot of home runs so if we hit a lot of home runs in 2007 we will end up like 2003" doesn't really follow.a) Here's a wild idea. It just came to me in a dream. Instead of trading for another masher we don't need whose monster contract and horrible attitude will hamstring the team for years, why not trade for the bullpen help we need? It's not as if there aren't any relievers out there they could get.

b) It follows perfectly. You can't overcome bad pitching with a big bat. It's been tried before. It doesn't work. Ever.

caulfield12
11-29-2006, 09:54 PM
Where are the magical pitchers that Kenny's going to go get?

Should we spend 14 million on Jason Schmidt?

Or do we need to re-anemicize our lineup so that the pitchers "try harder" as per that ridiculous post this year where the guy said Thome makes our pitchers decide not to try to get outs


Let's say they signed three of the following four:

J. Walker
Baez
Bradford
Williamson

All told, they would go for $14.5 million per season...without Baez, about $8.2 million.

So, with Walker, Bradford and Williamson, would they again be favorites in your mind to win the AL Central?

Would we all be happy if he allocated about $8-9 million to 3 veteran "decent to good" MLB relievers?

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 09:57 PM
a) Here's a wild idea. It just came to me in a dream. Instead of trading for another masher we don't need whose monster contract and horrible attitude will hamstring the team for years, why not trade for the bullpen help we need? It's not as if there aren't any relievers out there they could get.

b) It follows perfectly. You can't overcome bad pitching with a big bat. It's been tried before. It doesn't work. Ever.

b.) you can't? You've been around long enough to see some slugger teams win WS's. Hell, I'VE been around long enough. Especially when that team already has ACE caliber starting pitchers, and a lockdown closer.

Sorry. It's not that I think that Manny is the ANSWER. It's clear that pitching is the answer. I just don't think pitching is OUT THERE. I don't think free agent pitching is generally a good idea.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 09:58 PM
Let's say they signed three of the following four:

J. Walker
Baez
Bradford
Williamson

All told, they would go for $14.5 million per season...without Baez, about $8.2 million.

So, with Walker, Bradford and Williamson, would they again be favorites in your mind to win the AL Central?

Would we all be happy if he allocated about $8-9 million to 3 veteran "decent to good" MLB relievers?

We'll see what happens. I wouldn't be unhappy with those signings. I don't even think Manny's a better pickup than those signings. I'm just saying I wouldn't be that pumped to see them. Notice how few of our good bullpen arms in the past have come from high profile offseason acquisitions.....

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 09:58 PM
b.) you can't? You've been around long enough to see some slugger teams win WS's. Hell, I'VE been around long enough. Especially when that team already has ACE caliber starting pitchers, and a lockdown closer.

Sorry. It's not that I think that Manny is the ANSWER. It's clear that pitching is the answer. I just don't think pitching is OUT THERE. I don't think free agent pitching is generally a good idea.You don't think for what they'd have to give up to get Manny that they could get at least a couple of pretty good relievers instead?

Seriously?

And for a lot less than $20M a year.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:00 PM
You don't think for what they'd have to give up to get Manny that they could get at least a couple of pretty good relievers instead?

Seriously?

And for a lot less than $20M a year.

I think it's possible. But I think the past 2 offseasons have shown that relief pitching acquisitions can be very risky indeed. I'd rather have a guaranteed producer like Manny (or as close to a guarantee as you can get) than to go out and get, say, a Danny Kolb-type guy who had a great season or two and then become worse than mediocre out of nowhere. Or that one guy...with the billy goat beard. You know who I mean...what was his name...

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:05 PM
I think it's possible. But I think the past 2 offseasons have shown that relief pitching acquisitions can be very risky indeed. I'd rather have a guaranteed producer like Manny (or as close to a guarantee as you can get) than to go out and get, say, a Danny Kolb-type guy who had a great season or two and then become worse than mediocre out of nowhere. Or that one guy...with the billy goat beard. You know who I mean...what was his name...You could get a hell of a lot better than Danny Kolb. Most scenarios have the Sox giving up Garcia and Crede. You could have your pick of any two relievers from almost any team for that. We're talking proven relievers.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:08 PM
You could get a hell of a lot better than Danny Kolb. Most scenarios have the Sox giving up Garcia and Crede. You could have your pick of any two relievers from almost any team for that. We're talking proven relievers.

besides Mariano Rivera I don't know what a proven reliever is in this day and age. Declining talent and declining health is ALWAYS an issue.

Not to mention that the relative value for relievers is way too high right now. As in any loogy who can get that one out is going for way more than, I think, he should.

Danny Kolb was an example. I meant Danny Kolb coming off his AS appearance year, going to the Braves and stinking it up. If I did some research I could give you tons of examples of relievers who were got at very high prices and failed to produce at even the above average level.

but that's beside the point. My point remains that I trust Kenny to do what's best for the organization. I would like to see Manny, because that means that Kenny has something in mind for the bullpen.

Do you think Kenny's not aware of a bullpen problem?

SoxyStu
11-29-2006, 10:16 PM
Quote from OEO:

Are you kidding me? Yeah, let's trade our best reliever over the past one and half years, when our bullpen already sucks. :rolleyes:

You want to give the job to Thornton after one good year? I think Thornton is great, but how the hell can you say that he's better than Jenks?

He saved over 40 games last year...I'm sure it was just a fluke.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, I'll take the blame for screwing up the alignment of the quotes, but anyway...

I think MRM has a very ballsy consideration in trading Bobby. I do seem to remember a lot of Bobby bashing last spring, even after winning a World Series.

OEO, you state that MRM asserted that Thorton is better than Jenks; I disagree. I understood him as stating that Jenks is a loose cannon with a questionable work ethic with immense value right now and that MacDougal and Thorton are both capable of fulfilling his role. Capable of fulfilling his role does not equal better. In order to get something, you must give something. Not that I am a proponent of Thorton as our closer, but how many good years did Bobby have before becoming our closer?

If it were done as MRM stated, I think MacDougal would have to take over as closer as the season began, as he did it before regularly with the Royals. But Christ, every time I see MacDougal throw I think he's going to throw his arm off his body on his motion downward.


Ultimately, I hope to hell it's not gonna happen in anyone's world. I, for one, STILL don't want that prick on the team I cheer for. He has shown time and time again with his antics he is 34 years old with a lot of growing up to do.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:18 PM
besides Mariano Rivera I don't know what a proven reliever is in this day and age. Declining talent and declining health is ALWAYS an issue.

Not to mention that the relative value for relievers is way too high right now. As in any loogy who can get that one out is going for way more than, I think, he should.

Danny Kolb was an example. I meant Danny Kolb coming off his AS appearance year, going to the Braves and stinking it up. If I did some research I could give you tons of examples of relievers who were got at very high prices and failed to produce at even the above average level.

but that's beside the point. My point remains that I trust Kenny to do what's best for the organization. I would like to see Manny, because that means that Kenny has something in mind for the bullpen.

Do you think Kenny's not aware of a bullpen problem?Francisco Rodriguez
Trevor Hoffman
Joe Nathan
Mike Gonzalez

Just to name a few. I'd take any one of these guys over Manny Ramirez, and you'd probably get another player tossed in. And they'd have a boatload of money left over for other needs.

dickallen15
11-29-2006, 10:18 PM
If the White Sox have $20 million to burn on a new LF, Kenny should be fired if he blows off the bullpen again. There is no reason, if this is true, and I doubt it why Kenny didn't offer Speier $5 million a year and some of the other relievers some decent money. The offense is fine. The bullpen was brutal last year, now a lot of people think its fine because a rookie knuckleballer may be a part of it, and Cotts was replaced by a Cubs and Giants reject. How good can Aardsma really be? He's already been traded for LaToya Hawkins and Neal Cotts. We laughed at Todd Jones last year. His ERA was lower than the White Sox closer. Spend $20 million, or at least $15 million on the bullpen if that money is available. Manny is a great hitter, but if the Sox want to win, they must pitch better, have we not learned that yet?

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:20 PM
If the White Sox have $20 million to burn on a new LF, Kenny should be fired if he blows off the bullpen again. There is no reason, if this is true, and I doubt it why Kenny didn't offer Speier $5 million a year and some of the other relievers some decent money. The offense is fine. The bullpen was brutal last year, now a lot of people think its fine because a rookie knuckleballer may be a part of it, and Cotts was replaced by a Cubs and Giants reject. How good can Aardsma really be? He's already been traded for LaToya Hawkins and Neal Cotts. We laughed at Todd Jones last year. His ERA was lower than the White Sox closer. Spend $20 million, or at least $15 million on the bullpen if that money is available. Manny is a great hitter, but if the Sox want to win, they must pitch better, have we not learned that yet?Apparently not.:(:

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:21 PM
Apparently not.:(:

What is there to learn? When under Kenny have we gotten a huge bat that turned out badly?

If anything, under Kenny, any high profile attempts to get pitching (with the exception of Freddie) have turned out pretty ****ty

Or are you saying that instead of getting Thome, Kenny was stupid not to go stock up in the bullpen...

caulfield12
11-29-2006, 10:23 PM
Not Hoffman at this stage in his career...three to five years ago, yes.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:25 PM
Not Hoffman at this stage in his career...three to five years ago, yes.OK, I'll give you Hoffman, but I could easily add another half dozen to that list. For Garcia and Crede you could pretty much have your pick of the bullpen from half the teams in MLB (maybe more).

dickallen15
11-29-2006, 10:26 PM
What is there to learn? When under Kenny have we gotten a huge bat that turned out badly?

If anything, under Kenny, any high profile attempts to get pitching (with the exception of Freddie) have turned out pretty ****ty

Or are you saying that instead of getting Thome, Kenny was stupid not to go stock up in the bullpen...
JR upped the payroll significantly last offseason and KW spent the money on everything BUT the bullpen. He traded 2 guys who could have helped in the bullpen in El Duque and Vizcaino for an overpriced under .500 pitcher. He tried to get by with signing garbage 6 year minor league free agents. My blood pressure rose to stroke levels a couple of weeks ago when Kenny was touting Boone Logan as the White Sox LH LOOGIE in 2007. That is stupid, especially if you may have an extra $20 million sitting around somewhere waiting to be spent.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:27 PM
OK, I'll give you Hoffman, but I could easily add another half dozen to that list. For Garcia and Crede you could pretty much have your pick of the bullpen from half the teams in MLB (maybe more).

Sure but that's a high price to pay for the unreliability (and honestly, low impact) or a middle reliever.

Many of our best relievers have come in very low profile moves, on the cheap: Politte, Cotts (despite the two of their year last year...which only goes to show how mercurial relievers can be), Marte, Jenks, Thornton, and so on.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:28 PM
JR upped the payroll significantly last offseason and KW spent the money on everything BUT the bullpen. He traded 2 guys who could have helped in the bullpen in El Duque and Vizcaino for an overpriced under .500 pitcher. He tried to get by with signing garbage 6 year minor league free agents. My blood pressure rose to stroke levels a couple of weeks ago when Kenny was touting Boone Logan as the White Sox LH LOOGIE in 2007. That is stupid, especially if you may have an extra $20 million sitting around somewhere waiting to be spent.

Good point. Kenny is generally clueless. I'd rather have El Duque and Vizcaino than Thornton and Riske

I mean, are we seriously pretending it's Kenny's fault Cotts AND Politte became utterly worthless over ONE offseason?

caulfield12
11-29-2006, 10:28 PM
What is there to learn? When under Kenny have we gotten a huge bat that turned out badly?

If anything, under Kenny, any high profile attempts to get pitching (with the exception of Freddie) have turned out pretty ****ty

Or are you saying that instead of getting Thome, Kenny was stupid not to go stock up in the bullpen...


I don't think Contreras turned out that poorly, and that was pretty high profile.

El Duque was okay...by the way, he wasn't going to be in the bullpen this year, it was just a short-term solution

Sirotka for D. Wells was a washout.

Ritchie, not so good.

The jury's still out on Vazquez deal.

Garcia was a steal despite this season.

We also haven't given up any minor leaguers that have made much of an impact either. Think of all those traded or let go...Eldred, Baldwin, Parque, Rauch, Barcelo, Fogg, Wells, Lowe (spot starter), Danny Wright/Wrong, Matt Ginter, Aaron Myette, Kevin Beirne, Joe Valentine, Jeff Bajenaru, Matt Guerrier, Jason Grilli, Josh Stewart, Mike Porzio, Jon Adkins, Felix Diaz, Arnie Munoz, etc. etc.

caulfield12
11-29-2006, 10:31 PM
Sure but that's a high price to pay for the unreliability (and honestly, low impact) or a middle reliever.

Many of our best relievers have come in very low profile moves, on the cheap: Politte, Cotts (despite the two of their year last year...which only goes to show how mercurial relievers can be), Marte, Jenks, Thornton, and so on.


Cotts was low key, but the Foulke/Koch part of it was not.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:31 PM
I don't think Contreras turned out that poorly, and that was pretty high profile.

Notice that Elo for JC was a midseason trade, just like Freddie. I don't know what that means...but it seems to back up my belief that you're not likely to pick up a good pitcher for a reasonable price in the offseason

Sirotka for D. Wells was a washout.

sure it was a wash, but Wells was kind of a disaster here, especially compared to expectations
Ritchie, not so good.
yup

The jury's still out on Vazquez deal.
yup, but it certainly wasn't a great move by any stretch
Garcia was a steal despite this season.
midseason
We also haven't given up any minor leaguers that have made much of an impact either. Think of all those traded or let go...Eldred, Baldwin, Parque, Rauch, Barcelo, Fogg, Wells, Lowe (spot starter), Danny Wright/Wrong, Matt Ginter, Aaron Myette, Kevin Beirne, Joe Valentine, Jeff Bajenaru, Matt Guerrier, Jason Grilli, Josh Stewart, Mike Porzio, Jon Adkins, Felix Diaz.

you left out colon, which was another letdown


my point isn't that free agent/trades in the offseason for pitching is awful or that it's a disaster. It's just not likely to be a low-risk move. Kenny's best offseason-high-profile pitching moves have been "it wasn't a disaster"

Sorry if I don't feel optimistic about going out and signing a starting pitcher for 15 m plus or a middle reliever for 7m plus

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:31 PM
Sure but that's a high price to pay for the unreliability (and honestly, low impact) or a middle reliever.

Many of our best relievers have come in very low profile moves, on the cheap: Politte, Cotts (despite the two of their year last year...which only goes to show how mercurial relievers can be), Marte, Jenks, Thornton, and so on.I wouldn't call any of the guys on that list unreliable. There are plenty of solid relievers who are consistent year after year. Teams hold onto them because they're like gold, but for a starting pitcher and GG caliber 3B, you could have almost any one of them, AND another pretty good player tossed in.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:32 PM
Cotts was low key, but the Foulke/Koch part of it was not.

but foulke/koch was the main deal

how'd that koch off-season pickup turn out?

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:33 PM
I wouldn't call any of the guys on that list unreliable. There are plenty of solid relievers who are consistent year after year. Teams hold onto them because they're like gold, but for a starting pitcher and GG caliber 3B, you could have almost any one of them, AND another pretty good player tossed in.

middle relievers often look reliable. and then many times are not reliable the next year. just something i've noticed watching baseball past 5 or 6 season.

Iguana775
11-29-2006, 10:33 PM
Boston and the Sox are in a three way trade discussion with another AL team (Believed to be Anaheim or Texas) centering around Manny Ramirez. I don't even know which team Manny is intended for right now. That is all I have, I'll post more as I hear.


hey otis! good to see ya!

dickallen15
11-29-2006, 10:37 PM
Good point. Kenny is generally clueless. I'd rather have El Duque and Vizcaino than Thornton and Riske

I mean, are we seriously pretending it's Kenny's fault Cotts AND Politte became utterly worthless over ONE offseason?
Riske is gone. He blows. Politte's decline was obvious. Look at his career numbers. Cotts would have been hard-pressed to match his 2005 year, in fact he will be hard-pressed to ever match it. I was shocked at his complete colapse although he wasn't that awful until the last few months when he would have been lit up by a Pony League team. Thornton probably still would have been a White Sox. They had been interested in him for a couple of years. Kenny blew it with the bullpen last offseason. I bet you if you asked him he would admit it. I'm not too impressed with it now, although I did like his MacDougal move, but he's always a threat to be on the DL. Hopefully Thornton is not a 1 year wonder. He throws so hard and easy, you would think he should be alright as long as he has at least a little control. The offense is fine as it is. I think Manny is a great hitter and would love to see him in a White Sox uniform. The offense would be awesome. But if they want to win it all, the pitching needs to improve.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:39 PM
middle relievers often look reliable. and then many times are not reliable the next year. just something i've noticed watching baseball past 5 or 6 season.So you're worried about Francisco Rodriguez falling apart? GMAB There have been plenty of hitters that turned out to be busts, too. But you could get 2-3 relievers for the $20M it would cost for Manny Ramirez. Even if one of them flops, you're still way ahead. No contest.

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 10:40 PM
Time for me to chime in with a crazy idea:
Over 3 deals the 4 teams end up like this:
Wsox-Arod, Manny, Santana, Figgins and Sheilds
NYY-Konerko, Clement
Bos- Contreras, Uribe, Broadway and Mackowiak
Anaheim- Pods, Garcia, Crede

LINEUP:
Chone-LF, Iguchi 2b, Arod SS, Manny DH, Thome 1B, Dye RF, AJ -C, Anderson CF, Fields 3B.
BENCH: Pablo, Stewart, Gload, Sweeney
Rotation: Santana, Mccarthy, Javy, Burls and Garland
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Aardsma, Macdougal, Haegar, Sheilds and Reynoso.

Best part I think its a total salary wash while getting younger and better.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:41 PM
So you're worried about Francisco Rodriguez falling apart? GMAB There have been plenty of hitters that turned out to be busts, too. But you could get 2-3 relievers for the $20M it would cost for Manny Ramirez. Even if one of them flops, you're still way ahead. No contest.

Whatever. Fine. You think relievers are a safe bet and will "fix" this team.

I think pitching fix has to come from within and that if we can improve the lineup, I'm all for that, especially with a hall of fame hitter.

You're not going to convince me that going after relievers are a good buy, and I'm not going to convince you that Manny's a valuable addition to the team.

And you know what? It's ****ing irrelevant even if I could convince you or vice versa because Kenny's going to do what Kenny does and he doesn't really care what ON2 or Fquaye think about it.

I hate the ****ing offseason.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:42 PM
Time for me to chime in with a crazy idea:
Over 3 deals the 4 teams end up like this:
Wsox-Arod, Manny, Santana, Figgins and Sheilds
NYY-Konerko, Clement
Bos- Contreras, Uribe, Broadway and Mackowiak
Anaheim- Pods, Garcia, Crede

LINEUP:
Chone-LF, Iguchi 2b, Arod SS, Manny DH, Thome 1B, Dye RF, AJ -C, Anderson CF, Fields 3B.
BENCH: Pablo, Stewart, Gload, Sweeney
Rotation: Santana, Mccarthy, Javy, Burls and Garland
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Aardsma, Macdougal, Haegar, Sheilds and Reynoso.

Best part I think its a total salary wash while getting younger and better.All we would need is for complete morons to take over as GM of those other three teams.

JermaineDye05
11-29-2006, 10:42 PM
Time for me to chime in with a crazy idea:
Over 3 deals the 4 teams end up like this:
Wsox-Arod, Manny, Santana, Figgins and Sheilds
NYY-Konerko, Clement
Bos- Contreras, Uribe, Broadway and Mackowiak
Anaheim- Pods, Garcia, Crede

LINEUP:
Chone-LF, Iguchi 2b, Arod SS, Manny DH, Thome 1B, Dye RF, AJ -C, Anderson CF, Fields 3B.
BENCH: Pablo, Stewart, Gload, Sweeney
Rotation: Santana, Mccarthy, Javy, Burls and Garland
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Aardsma, Macdougal, Haegar, Sheilds and Reynoso.

Best part I think its a total salary wash while getting younger and better.

Now that's a pipe dream if I ever saw one. We can all dream though.

TheOldRoman
11-29-2006, 10:43 PM
Ted Williams was an ******* who didn't play good defense. I'd ****ing take Ted Williams on the White Sox.
I dont agree with you there. Ted Williams was pure class.
He was actually very much like Frank Thomas - one of the greatest hitters ever, local media turned on him early in his career, he put foot in mouth from time to time, and a lot of idiots believed the lies of sportswriters.

Gregory Pratt
11-29-2006, 10:43 PM
Uh, sorry guys, but Manny isn't just a homerun hitter. He hits for a damn good average, too, so let's stop pretending that he'd be "homerun or nothing." And as far as his defense -- it isn't as if we've got a huge left field or anything. He could certainly manage it.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:46 PM
I dont agree with you there. Ted Williams was pure class.
He was actually very much like Frank Thomas - one of the greatest hitters ever, local media turned on him early in his career, he put foot in mouth from time to time, and a lot of idiots believed the lies of sportswriters.
That's my point.

"waah waah waah Ted Williams didn't tip his cap after we the city of Boston were jerks to him his whole career. He's such an *******"

I probably should have used teal in my original post

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:47 PM
Uh, sorry guys, but Manny isn't just a homerun hitter. He hits for a damn good average, too, so let's stop pretending that he'd be "homerun or nothing." And as far as his defense -- it isn't as if we've got a huge left field or anything. He could certainly manage it.

stoppppp you're making too much sense!!!

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 10:48 PM
For all the people bitching about the bullpen tell me how easy it will be going from a high 80's low 90's pitcher in Burls for 6 innings, then going to one of the fireballers in Aardsma, Thornton or Macdougal for the 7th, the 65 mph knucker who can pitch almost everyday in the 8th then back to plus 100 in Bad Bobby in the 9th? Your timing will be so screwed up you won't be able to touch it after the 6th. The same formula could work with Garland. That equips for 40% of our starts. You all may be worried with our pen but I would rather go with in-house solutions at the league minimum over an expensive veteran who really is a crap shoot.

TheOldRoman
11-29-2006, 10:48 PM
That is what scares the crap out of me. The lineup would be scary good, but it would be a throwback to the past 7 years of HR's or nothing.

Maybe Ozzie wants him because he is a great bunter.
I am not for getting Manny, but people need to stop using this BS arguement whether it is against getting Manny or A-Rod or anyone else. Despite the buttload of power on the Sox in those years, they were not good offensive teams. We had a lot of mediocre hitters who hit lots of homers, didn't get on base, and were extremely streaky. Manny and Alex Rodriguez are two of the best hitters ever. Please don't make the mistake of comparing them to crap like Carlos Lee and Jose Valentin.
There is a huge difference from having a bunch of swing-from-the-shoetops hitters with poor averages who hit 30 homers and never walk, and having a good average hitter who hits 40 homers and gets on base 40% of the time.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:50 PM
I am not for getting Manny, but people need to stop using this BS arguement whether it is against getting Manny or A-Rod or anyone else. Despite the buttload of power on the Sox in those years, they were not good offensive teams. We had a lot of mediocre hitters who hit lots of homers, didn't get on base, and were extremely streaky. Manny and Alex Rodriguez are two of the best hitters ever. Please don't make the mistake of comparing them to crap like Carlos Lee and Jose Valentin.
There is a huge difference from having a bunch of swing-from-the-shoetops hitters with poor averages who hit 30 homers and never walk, and having a good average hitter who hits 40 homers and gets on base 40% of the time.

carlos lee is a hall of famer

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 10:52 PM
All we would need is for complete morons to take over as GM of those other three teams.
You don't think The Yanks would consider Paulie and Clement for Arod? Sure we would need to get Matt from Boston in the Manny part but I think you can call Boston and say "can we have Matt Clement?" They would probably say OK. Fenway can maybe either confirm or prove me wrong here but I think Boston wants out of the Clement contract. As far as Anaheim thats pretty close to the deal being the hot rumor right now except they add Pods for Sheilds.

MRM
11-29-2006, 10:53 PM
[quote=MRM;1424850]

Are you kidding me? Yeah, let's trade our best reliever over the past one and half years, when our bullpen already sucks. :rolleyes:

You want to give the job to Thornton after one good year? I think Thornton is great, but how the hell can you say that he's better than Jenks?

He saved over 40 games last year...I'm sure it was just a fluke. Maybe you forgot...the Sox didn't make the playoffs last year. Do you remember why? They're bullpen was terrible...one guy in that bullpen was consistently good (with a couple of bad outings near the end)...he goes by the name of Bobby Jenks. We need a better bullpen next year, not a power-hitting headcase.

Actually I'd give the job to Macdougal. When he's been healthy and held that job he was quite good at it.

There has NEVER, in the history of the game, been a closer I wouldn't trade to get better in another area. Never. It's easily THE most over rated and the most easily replaced position. The Sox are HUGE on guys that *can* close right now. How many closers have they had the last 2 years? I count three and ALL of them were VERY good at it at some point. Bobby is the flavor of the day right now...that's WHY I would trade him. Two years ago you couldn't get a bag of balls for the guy. Now he could potentially be a key piece in a major deal.

And my God, you aren't seriously implying that Jenks is a more important piece to winning than Manny, are you? I mean that is so unbelievably laughable I can't believe thats what you meant to say.

Frater Perdurabo
11-29-2006, 10:55 PM
I'm with Ol' No. 2. Go after bullpen help.

There's a point of diminishing returns once a certain level of individual offensive production is attained. It's not like the Sox could assemble a lineup of the best hitters at every position and then be a lock to score 10+ runs a night. We all know that the best hitting teams rarely win the World Series. We all know, however, that the best pitching teams, or the teams that have the hottest pitchers are the teams that DO win the World Series.

Don't deal Crede right now; he's under Sox control until after the 2008 season and he's the best defensive 3B in the game, which helps the pitching staff immensely.

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 10:57 PM
[quote=oeo;1424905]

Actually I'd give the job to Macdougal. When he's been healthy and held that job he was quite good at it.

There has NEVER, in the history of the game, been a closer I wouldn't trade to get better in another area. Never. It's easily THE most over rated and the most easily replaced position. The Sox are HUGE on guys that *can* close right now. How many closers have they had the last 2 years? I count three and ALL of them were VERY good at it at some point. Bobby is the flavor of the day right now...that's WHY I would trade him. Two years ago you couldn't get a bag of balls for the guy. Now he could potentially be a key piece in a major deal.

And my God, you aren't seriously implying that Jenks is a more important piece to winning than Manny, are you? I mean that is so unbelievably laughable I can't believe thats what you meant to say.
FOBB is that you? Closers are very important to the success or lack there of a team. How many games did Billy Koch cost us? Ask Milwaukee about Derrick Turnbow and about how they were competing then he fell apart and the team quietly followed? What happens to Houston if Lidge didn't suck and blow so many games in the first half?

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:59 PM
You don't think The Yanks would consider Paulie and Clement for Arod? Sure we would need to get Matt from Boston in the Manny part but I think you can call Boston and say "can we have Matt Clement?" They would probably say OK. Fenway can maybe either confirm or prove me wrong here but I think Boston wants out of the Clement contract. As far as Anaheim thats pretty close to the deal being the hot rumor right now except they add Pods for Sheilds.Pods for Shields. Fair trade. Maybe they'll do that straight up without the rest of the deal.:rolleyes:

And who plays 3B for the Yankees, Konerko or Clement?

That idea is wrong on so many levels it's absurd.

Oh, and Manny is not going to accept a trade that makes him a DH.

MRM
11-29-2006, 11:00 PM
For all the people bitching about the bullpen tell me how easy it will be going from a high 80's low 90's pitcher in Burls for 6 innings, then going to one of the fireballers in Aardsma, Thornton or Macdougal for the 7th, the 65 mph knucker who can pitch almost everyday in the 8th then back to plus 100 in Bad Bobby in the 9th? Your timing will be so screwed up you won't be able to touch it after the 6th. The same formula could work with Garland. That equips for 40% of our starts. You all may be worried with our pen but I would rather go with in-house solutions at the league minimum over an expensive veteran who really is a crap shoot.

Did Bobby throw a single pitch over 100 this year? I don't think he did. Every time I saw him he was topping out at 95 or 96 with most of his fastballs in the 92-93 range. Not bad. Also not intimidating. By the end of the year he was only the 3rd fastest pitcher on the team. Great curve, but even that seemed to lose some zip. He's trade bait if I'm the GM.

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 11:00 PM
Pods for Shields. Fair trade. Maybe they'll do that straight up without the rest of the deal.:rolleyes:

And who plays 3B for the Yankees, Konerko or Clement?

That idea is wrong on so many levels it's absurd.

Oh, and Manny is not going to accept a trade that makes him a DH.
You know the benadryl/Beer combo had me feeling really good until you ruined it for me.:D:

guillen4life13
11-29-2006, 11:03 PM
It's not a question of addressing the pitching staff or adding a Manny. The pitching staff is what it is: They're going to lose one of the SPs and add an RP. That's a given. It's not like it's Manny or Johan Santana or something.

The question is: given the staff they currently have (minus one of the SPs), is the team better off with Pods or maybe Figgins or even Young along with Crede or with Manny (or in previous iterations of these discussions, ARod) and Fields? It's a pretty big stretch on Crede's ability to go with the former. You're talking about 2 guys in the latter scenario who are guaranteed hall of famers and who are still hitting like it.

I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is, before the White Sox get Manny, I'd much rather get a somewhat proven bullpen arm, or even upgrade a starting pitcher.

It was pitching, not the offense that really hurt the Sox. The Sox getting Manny would make them a very Yankee-esque team (and not the Yankees of the '90's and before, unfortunately). There is absolutely nothing to guarantee that McCarthy, Vazquez/Garcia/Buehrle (whoever is left by April), Contreras, or even Garland are going to have a great year. Manny could pose as a bigger distraction than we hope.

I for one, don't bank on the the SPs all having the years we're expecting. Sure, on paper, it's arguably the best rotation in baseball. But if 2006 is any indication, these guys can be hit or miss. Buehrle fell off (no one knows why), Contreras had a nagging groin problem and his performance fell, Garland won games but had an average SP ERA of 4.51, so the biggest saving grace for him is his age. And that was 4.51 the lowest ERA in the rotation. Honestly, I'd rather keep Ervin Santana (if the Sox should land him) and trade pretty much anyone on the rotation before him (except McCarthy), as Santana would be the second youngest guy in there, and had a better ERA than any other pitcher in the rotation. Something went wrong in the rotation in 06, and I just don't think we can bank on it returning to 2005 form.

Just getting into the playoffs is not as important to me, or you as winning the World Series. In the last few years, playoff series have almost always come down to quality pitching. MRM said something to the effect of "[If the Sox were to get Manny AND ARod] It wouldn't even matter what the pitching does, we would still win."

That's the biggest statement I had a problem with. Offense tends to be a very streaky thing when the lineup is made up of boppers. Yes, they're the best boppers in the game, and will go down as some of the best in history. So? So yeah, I'm not denying that the offensive production will go up, but considering the way the Sox have pitched, I don't think that having those sluggers will get us very far in the playoffs.

That's my point.

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 11:03 PM
Francisco Rodriguez
Trevor Hoffman
Joe Nathan
Mike Gonzalez

Just to name a few. I'd take any one of these guys over Manny Ramirez, and you'd probably get another player tossed in. And they'd have a boatload of money left over for other needs.
None of them would come here, except for Gonzalez. His impact would not be anywhere near Manny's. 650 PA's vs. 60 IP.

MRM
11-29-2006, 11:04 PM
carlos lee is a hall of famer

What, exactly, does Carlos lee have to do with Manny or ARod?

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 11:05 PM
[quote=MRM;1425057]
FOBB is that you? Closers are very important to the success or lack there of a team. How many games did Billy Koch cost us? Ask Milwaukee about Derrick Turnbow and about how they were competing then he fell apart and the team quietly followed? What happens to Houston if Lidge didn't suck and blow so many games in the first half?
OK, and you completely made his point for him. Koch was at peak value in Oakland, they traded him for a good package. And then he turned to crap. Turnbow was good, and then sucked. Same goes for Lidge. RP are extremely shaky and vary year to year. You never know what you're going to get. The best bet is to put a good pitcher as the closer and hope for the best.

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 11:06 PM
I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is, before the White Sox get Manny, I'd much rather get a somewhat proven bullpen arm, or even upgrade a starting pitcher.

It was pitching, not the offense that really hurt the Sox. The Sox getting Manny would make them a very Yankee-esque team (and not the Yankees of the '90's and before, unfortunately). There is absolutely nothing to guarantee that McCarthy, Vazquez/Garcia/Buehrle (whoever is left by April), Contreras, or even Garland are going to have a great year. Manny could pose as a bigger distraction than we hope.

I for one, don't bank on the the SPs all having the years we're expecting. Sure, on paper, it's arguably the best rotation in baseball. But if 2006 is any indication, these guys can be hit or miss. Buehrle fell off (no one knows why), Contreras had a nagging groin problem and his performance fell, Garland won games but had an average SP ERA of 4.51, so the biggest saving grace for him is his age. And that was 4.51 the lowest ERA in the rotation. Honestly, I'd rather keep Ervin Santana (if the Sox should land him) and trade pretty much anyone on the rotation before him (except McCarthy), as Santana would be the second youngest guy in there, and had a better ERA than any other pitcher in the rotation. Something went wrong in the rotation in 06, and I just don't think we can bank on it returning to 2005 form.

Just getting into the playoffs is not as important to me, or you as winning the World Series. In the last few years, playoff series have almost always come down to quality pitching. MRM said something to the effect of "[If the Sox were to get Manny AND ARod] It wouldn't even matter what the pitching does, we would still win."

That's the biggest statement I had a problem with. Offense tends to be a very streaky thing when the lineup is made up of boppers. Yes, they're the best boppers in the game, and will go down as some of the best in history. So? So yeah, I'm not denying that the offensive production will go up, but considering the way the Sox have pitched, I don't think that having those sluggers will get us very far in the playoffs.

That's my point.
You want an impact RP. I figure 7 bullpen spots. Guarenteed spots are Jenks, Thornton, Aardsma, Macdougal, and I say Haegar is a lock. Leaving 2 spots a righty and a lefty. Who would you say we can get that would make us better off than if we went in-house?

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 11:09 PM
What, exactly, does Carlos lee have to do with Manny or ARod?


do you read the posts? because if you would have read the post i quoted you would see why i brought up carlos lee

(hint: he was mentioned in that post, ia richards)

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 11:09 PM
I'm with Ol' No. 2. Go after bullpen help.

There's a point of diminishing returns once a certain level of individual offensive production is attained. It's not like the Sox could assemble a lineup of the best hitters at every position and then be a lock to score 10+ runs a night. We all know that the best hitting teams rarely win the World Series. We all know, however, that the best pitching teams, or the teams that have the hottest pitchers are the teams that DO win the World Series.

Don't deal Crede right now; he's under Sox control until after the 2008 season and he's the best defensive 3B in the game, which helps the pitching staff immensely.Such a simple concept, it's amazing how few seem to comprehend it. A baseball team is more than just the sum of the individual contributions. Otherwise the Yankees would be working on their 10th straight World Series Championship.

I'm not eager to deal Crede for the same reasons you mentioned. Why get in a big hurry to unload him because he might get expensive in 2009??? I don't get it. That said, no one is untouchable for the right deal if it makes the team better.

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 11:10 PM
[quote=getonbckthr;1425064]
OK, and you completely made his point for him. Koch was at peak value in Oakland, they traded him for a good package. And then he turned to crap. Turnbow was good, and then sucked. Same goes for Lidge. RP are extremely shaky and vary year to year. You never know what you're going to get. The best bet is to put a good pitcher as the closer and hope for the best.
I'm just saying Jenks must bring a huge return because his contract is rediculously affordable for his value. Its not easy to find a guy who can handle the pressure of closing a game out, clearly he can. The cases I gave probably weren't the best for my arguement.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 11:13 PM
Such a simple concept, it's amazing how few seem to comprehend it. A baseball team is more than just the sum of the individual contributions. Otherwise the Yankees would be working on their 10th straight World Series Championship.

I'm not eager to deal Crede for the same reasons you mentioned. Why get in a big hurry to unload him because he might get expensive in 2009??? I don't get it. That said, no one is untouchable for the right deal if it makes the team better.

gmab. You're right. I don't understand baseball. I know the value of individual parts. I played on a high school ball team that valued fundamentals b/c we didn't have anyone capable of hitting 20 hr's in a season. We won the division championship as the first undefeated team in division history.

I also know that if we would have had a couple guys who could have hit 20 hr's we would have been a better team.

Manny might not be the best solution for the team. In fact, he's probably not. I don't know what the best solution is, but I'm relatively sure it's not

a.) overpaying for middle relief

b.) having the mentality that adding hof talent to your lineup would somehow be a bad thing on principle

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 11:15 PM
None of them would come here, except for Gonzalez. His impact would not be anywhere near Manny's. 650 PA's vs. 60 IP.So I guess Johan Santana wouldn't have anywhere near the impact of Manny, either. 650 PA's vs. 233 IP:rolleyes:

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 11:18 PM
So I guess Johan Santana wouldn't have anywhere near the impact of Manny, either. 650 PA's vs. 233 IP:rolleyes:

how on earth does that logic follow?

no honestly, how on earth does that logic follows?

"if 650 pa's is much greater impact than 60 ip, then that probably means the poster is saying that 650 pa is also much greater impact than almost 4 times that amount"

:rolleyes:

MRM
11-29-2006, 11:18 PM
Pods for Shields. Fair trade. Maybe they'll do that straight up without the rest of the deal.:rolleyes:

And who plays 3B for the Yankees, Konerko or Clement?

That idea is wrong on so many levels it's absurd.

Oh, and Manny is not going to accept a trade that makes him a DH.

Pods for Shields? Are you kidding me? that is so insane it doesn't deserve comment. Why would the Angels WANT pods if they are dealing Figgins, for starters? Gonna give up SHIELDS to get Pods after trading Figgins? I think not.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 11:21 PM
gmab. You're right. I don't understand baseball. I know the value of individual parts. I played on a high school ball team that valued fundamentals b/c we didn't have anyone capable of hitting 20 hr's in a season. We won the division championship as the first undefeated team in division history.

I also know that if we would have had a couple guys who could have hit 20 hr's we would have been a better team.

Manny might not be the best solution for the team. In fact, he's probably not. I don't know what the best solution is, but I'm relatively sure it's not

a.) overpaying for middle relief

b.) having the mentality that adding hof talent to your lineup would somehow be a bad thing on principleThat sound you heard was the point whizzing over your head. Paradoxically, you just made Frater's point. For a team that doesn't have much power, adding a power bat can make a big difference. But for a team that already has plenty, adding an other provides a much smaller impact.

Adding Manny is not bad on principle, and no one said it was. But you can add 3 solid relievers for the same $20M they'd be paying Manny, and those three relievers are going to make a much bigger difference than adding another big bat to a team that already has enough.

You'd think that we'd seen enough of teams trying to slug their way to overcoming inadequate pitching for people to get the point.

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 11:24 PM
So I guess Johan Santana wouldn't have anywhere near the impact of Manny, either. 650 PA's vs. 233 IP:rolleyes:
o.....k....

Not sure where that came from. Thanks to fquaye for already commenting on the absurdity of that comment.

oeo
11-29-2006, 11:25 PM
Actually I'd give the job to Macdougal. When he's been healthy and held that job he was quite good at it.

There has NEVER, in the history of the game, been a closer I wouldn't trade to get better in another area. Never. It's easily THE most over rated and the most easily replaced position. The Sox are HUGE on guys that *can* close right now. How many closers have they had the last 2 years? I count three and ALL of them were VERY good at it at some point. Bobby is the flavor of the day right now...that's WHY I would trade him. Two years ago you couldn't get a bag of balls for the guy. Now he could potentially be a key piece in a major deal.

And my God, you aren't seriously implying that Jenks is a more important piece to winning than Manny, are you? I mean that is so unbelievably laughable I can't believe thats what you meant to say.

First, your comments about finding a closer are so absurd, it's not even funny. If closers were so easy to find and replace, we would have had a consistently good closer for years. Instead, Jenks has been the best thing to come since Keith Foulke. Go tell this to Jim Hendry and the Flubs.

And second, the point of my post had nothing to do with Manny. You said you would trade Jenks, because you think he can be easily replaced. That's a bold statement.

But since you brought Manny up...it's not worth it to get him. A big bat is not a hole. We have 2-3 massive holes in the bullpen, a hole at leadoff, and possible holes in center and SS. Manny does not fill a need, so why the hell are we going to spend our resources to get Manny, when we could instead use them more effectively and fill actual holes.

Get over yourself...maybe you should switch to the Flubs, you and Hendry would agree on a lot of things. If the Sox made these proposed moves for Manny, I would see this as the equivalent as the Flubs going after Soriano. They went and got a guy who was not a necessity, when they instead could have spent that $136 million on Barry Zito, or getting the Gyroball guy.

So...one more time: We do NOT need Manny. Fill the holes that we need to fill. The biggest priority is the bullpen...we would have been in the postseason with a good bullpen.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 11:26 PM
That sound you heard was the point whizzing over your head. Paradoxically, you just made Frater's point. For a team that doesn't have much power, adding a power bat can make a big difference. But for a team that already has plenty, adding an other provides a much smaller impact.

Adding Manny is not bad on principle, and no one said it was. But you can add 3 solid relievers for the same $20M they'd be paying Manny, and those three relievers are going to make a much bigger difference than adding another big bat to a team that already has enough.

You'd think that we'd seen enough of teams trying to slug their way to overcoming inadequate pitching for people to get the point.
condescend much?

diminishing returns has very little to do with production in a baseball lineup.

Diminishing return assumes there's a limited amount of home runs to be hit.

What will diminish is RBI, but RBI is not Manny's chief measure of value.

The point is---fundamentals are well and good if you have to play weak-boy baseball and you have good pitching.

When you're pitching's an issue, you can either

a.) go out and fix every potential problem in your pitching staff

b.) try to prepare for weak pitching by having the best possible lineup you can

c.) none of the above.

I like b.), I think it's more plausible. You think a.) Is.

We get the point---you are able to make the obvious deduction that what was wrong with the team last year is pitching. I agree 100%. However I don't think the fix is out there in free agency or trade. I don't think that any pitching acquisition we make will be a salary restriction.

I see a nri or a nobody acquired in trade a la thornton being the one to stem our bullpen's problem. You see free agency. Fine.

I'm done with this. I'm sick of the point whizzing over my silly head because I am a non-fundamentals philistine.

Craig Grebeck
11-29-2006, 11:31 PM
You'd think that we'd seen enough of teams trying to slug their way to overcoming inadequate pitching for people to get the point.
THERE IS NOBODY ON THE OPEN MARKET WHO CAN HELP THIS TEAM PITCHING WISE. Manny Ramirez is a HOF. He has an incredible impact on any offense, no matter what was there before. The team isn't perfect offensively, we still have pretty poor hitters in AJ, Uribe, and Anderson. He will help.

oeo
11-29-2006, 11:44 PM
THERE IS NOBODY ON THE OPEN MARKET WHO CAN HELP THIS TEAM PITCHING WISE. Manny Ramirez is a HOF. He has an incredible impact on any offense, no matter what was there before. The team isn't perfect offensively, we still have pretty poor hitters in AJ, Uribe, and Anderson. He will help.

The Sox need relievers.
Starting pitching >>> relief pitching.
We have a surplus of starting pitching.
With the prices starting pitchers are going for, our surplus of pitching has a ton of value.

And you don't think Kenny will be able to make a move or two to improve the bullpen? *****...wait for a team to get desperate for starting pitching, and we will get a hell of a deal.

You're right, the offense isn't perfect. We need a leadoff hitter and possibly a CF'er, and maybe a SS. But even not improving those three things, the offense is still one of the highest scoring in the league. A good bullpen last year would have gotten us back to the postseason...and you just want to ignore that and go for more offense? That plan sucks, and it shows year after year in the Red Sox and Yankees (and will show in the Flubberoos next year).

It's so funny how things have changed around here. During the season it was all about how we were the 03/04 Sox all over again. And now some of you want to just forget what won a championship in 2005 and go back to that? Manny may help us get back to the playoffs, but without a bullpen, we will be out in the first round.

Frater Perdurabo
11-29-2006, 11:50 PM
diminishing returns has very little to do with production in a baseball lineup.

Diminishing return assumes there's a limited amount of home runs to be hit.

What will diminish is RBI, but RBI is not Manny's chief measure of value.
[/COLOR]

The problem is that Manny = Pods defensively, while bringing nothing to the table that the Sox need offensively.

Ridiculous hypothetical that proves my point: If you owned a team with eight Manny Ramirezes playing the field and mediocre to bad pitching, would the team get appreciably better if it added a ninth Manny Ramirez to the lineup (and playing the field)? The answer, of course, is no.

Did a better hitter in Charles Johnson make the 2000 Sox - a team built on hitting - perform better against Seattle in the ALDS? Would another slugger have gotten the Sox into the playoffs in 2003? Would another slugger have gotten the Sox into the playoffs in 2006? No, no and no.

If the Sox nevertheless decided they needed/wanted another hitter, I'd much rather seem them get a player with a skill set that would complement their existing players, like Crawford or Ichiro, who also could make the team better (or at least equal) defensively. Moreover, none of these players is a petulant brat like Manny Ramirez (A-Rod may be a prima donna, but he was enough of a team player to move willingly to 3B to accommodate a lesser defender who just happened to be the "captain" of the Yankees.)

Still, since we all agree that the pitching was the problem in 2006, why do some prefer to augment the offense instead of improving the pitching?

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 11:53 PM
The problem is that Manny = Pods defensively, while bringing nothing to the table that the Sox need offensively.


I was and still am done with this thread. but this is a fun quote.

getonbckthr
11-29-2006, 11:56 PM
My only 2 questions are: Is there any pitchers available that A) are better than any in-house solution, and B) is the difference in talent between in-house and out-house pitchers worth the contract differences as far as money? If the answer is NO to either of those questions then we are better off adding another bat to drive in more runs to hopefully make up for the pitching.

spiffie
11-29-2006, 11:58 PM
The Sox need relievers.
Starting pitching >>> relief pitching.
We have a surplus of starting pitching.
With the prices starting pitchers are going for, our surplus of pitching has a ton of value.

And you don't think Kenny will be able to make a move or two to improve the bullpen? *****...wait for a team to get desperate for starting pitching, and we will get a hell of a deal.

If Kenny trades a starter for a reliever he 1. is not as smart as we all think he is, and 2. will be toasted on this board by everyone.

Our starting pitching will have value on the market, but I cannot foresee any deal where getting a RP for one of our SP's will be a major component of any move. One might come as part of a deal, but with maybe the very slight chance of Scot Shields there is no RP of value that any team would trade. Unless maybe you want us to go trade Garcia for Howry and Eyre, I'm sure that would go over wonderfully here.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 07:09 AM
My only 2 questions are: Is there any pitchers available that A) are better than any in-house solution, and B) is the difference in talent between in-house and out-house pitchers worth the contract differences as far as money? If the answer is NO to either of those questions then we are better off adding another bat to drive in more runs to hopefully make up for the pitching.


I'll ask the same question from earlier in the thread...

If the White Sox announced the signings of Walker, Bradford and Williamson (totalling around $8 million for 2007), would you be happy?

Would the difference be that much greater in performance than the $1 million for Haeger, Aardsma, Logan, Tracey, Montero, Broadway, Reynoso, Malone, O. Perez, etc.?

That is the question.

Craig Grebeck
11-30-2006, 07:11 AM
The problem is that Manny = Pods defensively, while bringing nothing to the table that the Sox need offensively.

Ridiculous hypothetical that proves my point: If you owned a team with eight Manny Ramirezes playing the field and mediocre to bad pitching, would the team get appreciably better if it added a ninth Manny Ramirez to the lineup (and playing the field)? The answer, of course, is no.

Did a better hitter in Charles Johnson make the 2000 Sox - a team built on hitting - perform better against Seattle in the ALDS? Would another slugger have gotten the Sox into the playoffs in 2003? Would another slugger have gotten the Sox into the playoffs in 2006? No, no and no.

If the Sox nevertheless decided they needed/wanted another hitter, I'd much rather seem them get a player with a skill set that would complement their existing players, like Crawford or Ichiro, who also could make the team better (or at least equal) defensively. Moreover, none of these players is a petulant brat like Manny Ramirez (A-Rod may be a prima donna, but he was enough of a team player to move willingly to 3B to accommodate a lesser defender who just happened to be the "captain" of the Yankees.)

Still, since we all agree that the pitching was the problem in 2006, why do some prefer to augment the offense instead of improving the pitching?
I don't care if we don't need Manny Ramirez, but he would make ANY team astronomically better. His worst OPS in the last eight seasons? .982! He would have a much larger impact than Crawford or Ichiro. If we have the right package, go for it and get the best hitter in baseball this side of Pujols.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 07:16 AM
WHEN HE ACTUALLY WANTS TO PLAY.

We should have learned our lesson 10 years ago with Belle.

Ichiro would have a positive influence because he plays the game the way it's supposed to be played. You can't say that about most superstars.

When a star player does that, it rubs off on everyone around him.

We saw this in the White Sox clubhouse from 2001-2003, it was one of the biggest reasons we never beat the Twins...because we beat ourselves.

Frater Perdurabo
11-30-2006, 07:22 AM
I don't care if we don't need Manny Ramirez, but he would make ANY team astronomically better. His worst OPS in the last eight seasons? .982! He would have a much larger impact than Crawford or Ichiro. If we have the right package, go for it and get the best hitter in baseball this side of Pujols.

Crawford might not be the ideal leadoff hitter, but with his high average and speed he'd bring an extra dimension that would more perfectly complement the other Sox hitters, while playing very good defense.

Ichiro and Iguchi would be a tremendous 1-2 punch, capable of setting the table for the heart of the order. Since he's such a great defensive RF, Ichiro also would allow the SOx to move another great defensive right fielder to left. Dye's arm would prevent a lot of runners from scoring and/or attempting to score or take the extra base. That would help Sox pitchers.

Ramirez doesn't make the TEAM better. He would improve the offense while downgrading the defense and injecting a huge dose of immaturity. I don't want petulant toddlers on the Sox. With Manny being Manny, the Sox might set all kinds of offensive records, but it wouldn't matter if the pitching sucked and gave up even more runs.

Oh, I forgot, 2007 is all about hitting more homers than the Cubs.

:kukoo:

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 08:22 AM
Ichiro and Iguchi would be a tremendous 1-2 punch, capable of setting the table for the heart of the order. Since he's such a great defensive RF, Ichiro also would allow the SOx to move another great defensive right fielder to left. Dye's arm would prevent a lot of runners from scoring and/or attempting to score or take the extra base. That would help Sox pitchers.

Ramirez doesn't make the TEAM better. He would improve the offense while downgrading the defense and injecting a huge dose of immaturity. I don't want petulant toddlers on the Sox. With Manny being Manny, the Sox might set all kinds of offensive records, but it wouldn't matter if the pitching sucked and gave up even more runs.

Oh, I forgot, 2007 is all about hitting more homers than the Cubs.

:kukoo:

i'd take ichiro too. heck i'd MUCH rather have Ichiro than Manny. Where have you heard that Ichiro might be available though?

as to your last line, I don't see Hangar posting anyway in this thread....so ***

ps. i'm STILL done with this thread

jabrch
11-30-2006, 08:23 AM
I'd have to check, but my first inclination is to think that the combined .OBP of Thome, Konerko, Dye and Ramirez would be higher than the combined .OBP of Thomas, Ordonez, Lee and Konerko. Plus, the pitching would be better than the 2001-2004 versions. The key would still be the bullpen.


Who cares what their OBP is? Tell me what their SLG is. That's your 3/4/5/6 hitters. You don't evaluate them on OBP. OPS, SLG, RC, whatever...but OBP?

jabrch
11-30-2006, 08:25 AM
Ramirez doesn't make the TEAM better. He would improve the offense while downgrading the defense

Not really - You couldn't possibly downgrade the defense from what Pods did out there last year.

I don't see how you think that the extra offense wouldn't improve the club.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 08:28 AM
Who cares what their OBP is? Tell me what their SLG is. That's your 3/4/5/6 hitters. You don't evaluate them on OBP. OPS, SLG, RC, whatever...but OBP?

obp though is probably the most important "simple" stat in baseball

besides wins of course

barney27
11-30-2006, 08:31 AM
Where did you get your info on this reported trade possibility? Do you have a link? Would be a great addition depending on how much we have to return. Of course getting one of the top five hitters in the game would surely compensate.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 09:31 AM
For those who slept through the 2006 season (and judging from this thread, there were a lot of you), the Sox' main problems were:

1. The starting pitching declined significantly from 2005.
2. The bullpen blew more games than I want to count.
3. Both the top and the bottom of the order was MIA through most of the season.

The one area in which they got consistent production was the middle of the batting order, with their 3-4-5 hitters all turning in .900+ OPS, combining for 121 HR and 342 RBI.

So how to fix this, given finite financial resources and a few good players available to trade? Blow the whole wad on ANOTHER middle of the order hitter and hope to pound out enough runs to make up for all the other deficiencies. That approach has worked so well in the past.

spiffie
11-30-2006, 09:50 AM
For those who slept through the 2006 season (and judging from this thread, there were a lot of you), the Sox' main problems were:

1. The starting pitching declined significantly from 2005.
2. The bullpen blew more games than I want to count.
3. Both the top and the bottom of the order was MIA through most of the season.

The one area in which they got consistent production was the middle of the batting order, with their 3-4-5 hitters all turning in .900+ OPS, combining for 121 HR and 342 RBI.

So how to fix this, given finite financial resources and a few good players available to trade? Blow the whole wad on ANOTHER middle of the order hitter and hope to pound out enough runs to make up for all the other deficiencies. That approach has worked so well in the past.
Okay, here's my question then: Is there any way to address these failings that is both plausible and fair in return it nets us?

1. No one seems to want to replace any of the starters with outside arms, except for the possibility of Ervin Santana. So failing that, we're pretty much crossing our fingers on this one.

2. You posted earlier in the thread names of closers you'd rather have than Manny or another hitter. And I agree with you. The problem is that as much as it would be great to go out and trade for a major closer or two stud relief arms, it's not likely happening. The only place you might get two bullpen arms who have any sort of track record for Freddy/Javy/MB is across town with Howry/Eyre, and that is unlikely. There are still some decent names on the market, but as you have even said in other posts, they will be available cheaply. So I fail to see why this area cannt be addressed while maintaining fiscal flexibility for other moves. If we spend $3 million on Steve Kline or someone like that, it hardly ends our offseason I would assume. Earlier you said you'd rather spend $20 million on 3 solid relievers. At this point in the offseason I don't believe you can reasonably do that without vastly overpaying someone. By letting so many names go already to avoid that same overpayment, we're in the position now where by necessity the guys we sign would likely end up being all in the 2-3.5 million a year range.

3. We've (as in WSI as a whole) have argued the Pods thing endlessly. There seems to be little appetite in the Sox organization to replace Uribe . Anderson's defenders will leave him in CF to the death. So the sinkholes at 1, 8, 9 are not likely to be replaced in any move you would agree with that I can think of, though I would be happy to be corrected on that one. Without getting into the lineup construction argument (that's a whole other holy war) the only way we're going to fix any of those is by putting another huge bat in the middle, shoehorning everyone down one spot, and squeezing out 1 of those 3 people. In this case, Podsednik going, so that the 3-7 guys would all be big hitters and the only poor hitters would be the 8 and 9 spots.

Personally, I'd much rather get Alex Rodriguez. Hell, if we can trade for Manny, maybe we could flip him for A-Rod straight up. That would fix a much bigger problem (SS), and would let us keep A-Rod and Crede on the left side of the infield. But at this point I'm not sure there's any meaningful solution to our problems from last year, so our best bet might be to try and make our strengths even stronger and hope that our starting pitching returns to a better form.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 10:17 AM
Okay, here's my question then: Is there any way to address these failings that is both plausible and fair in return it nets us?

1. No one seems to want to replace any of the starters with outside arms, except for the possibility of Ervin Santana. So failing that, we're pretty much crossing our fingers on this one.

2. You posted earlier in the thread names of closers you'd rather have than Manny or another hitter. And I agree with you. The problem is that as much as it would be great to go out and trade for a major closer or two stud relief arms, it's not likely happening. The only place you might get two bullpen arms who have any sort of track record for Freddy/Javy/MB is across town with Howry/Eyre, and that is unlikely. There are still some decent names on the market, but as you have even said in other posts, they will be available cheaply. So I fail to see why this area cannt be addressed while maintaining fiscal flexibility for other moves. If we spend $3 million on Steve Kline or someone like that, it hardly ends our offseason I would assume. Earlier you said you'd rather spend $20 million on 3 solid relievers. At this point in the offseason I don't believe you can reasonably do that without vastly overpaying someone. By letting so many names go already to avoid that same overpayment, we're in the position now where by necessity the guys we sign would likely end up being all in the 2-3.5 million a year range.

3. We've (as in WSI as a whole) have argued the Pods thing endlessly. There seems to be little appetite in the Sox organization to replace Uribe . Anderson's defenders will leave him in CF to the death. So the sinkholes at 1, 8, 9 are not likely to be replaced in any move you would agree with that I can think of, though I would be happy to be corrected on that one. Without getting into the lineup construction argument (that's a whole other holy war) the only way we're going to fix any of those is by putting another huge bat in the middle, shoehorning everyone down one spot, and squeezing out 1 of those 3 people. In this case, Podsednik going, so that the 3-7 guys would all be big hitters and the only poor hitters would be the 8 and 9 spots.

Personally, I'd much rather get Alex Rodriguez. Hell, if we can trade for Manny, maybe we could flip him for A-Rod straight up. That would fix a much bigger problem (SS), and would let us keep A-Rod and Crede on the left side of the infield. But at this point I'm not sure there's any meaningful solution to our problems from last year, so our best bet might be to try and make our strengths even stronger and hope that our starting pitching returns to a better form.

Why would the Yanks want Ramirez?

They have Cabrera, Bernie, Damon, Matsui, Abreu, Giambi...unless you want Giambi to be the full-time 1B (that would be like Frank Thomas being either a closer or on the Olympic 4 X 100 relay team), or Manny, but do you really see that happening?

oeo
11-30-2006, 10:26 AM
2. You posted earlier in the thread names of closers you'd rather have than Manny or another hitter. And I agree with you. The problem is that as much as it would be great to go out and trade for a major closer or two stud relief arms, it's not likely happening. The only place you might get two bullpen arms who have any sort of track record for Freddy/Javy/MB is across town with Howry/Eyre, and that is unlikely. There are still some decent names on the market, but as you have even said in other posts, they will be available cheaply. So I fail to see why this area cannt be addressed while maintaining fiscal flexibility for other moves. If we spend $3 million on Steve Kline or someone like that, it hardly ends our offseason I would assume. Earlier you said you'd rather spend $20 million on 3 solid relievers. At this point in the offseason I don't believe you can reasonably do that without vastly overpaying someone. By letting so many names go already to avoid that same overpayment, we're in the position now where by necessity the guys we sign would likely end up being all in the 2-3.5 million a year range.

I don't understand this. Trading for Manny Ramirez is more likely than trading for bullpen arms? Just because there have not been rumors circulating about who they could trade for, does not mean it's unlikely.

"The only place you might get two bullpen arms who have any sort of track record for Freddy/Javy/MB is across town with Howry/Eyre, and that is unlikely."

Again...trading one of our starters for Manny Ramirez is likely, but trading one of our starters for relief pitching is "unlikely". This makes no sense...starting pitching is much more valuable than relief pitching. Some team will get desperate for starting pitching, and Kenny will get what he wants. What team, who needs good starting pitching, wouldn't give up a couple of bullpen arms for it? You're telling me that the Flubs wouldn't take any one of those three for Howry and Eyre? That's ridiculous, they would be ripping us off.

I know I keep saying this, but relievers are very inconsistent...they can be had for starting pitching. Especially considering how much our pitching is worth on the market now, after the contracts some of these guys are getting. The more mediocre free agents that get signed to massive contracts, the more valuable our starting pitching gets. So to say that we cannot get relief help from our starting pitching surplus is ridiculous. This is just an excuse so we can go get Manny and re-center our team around hitting the long ball.

CLR01
11-30-2006, 10:37 AM
OK, some folks in this thread need to relax and argue their point without all of the condescending bull**** attached. There will be no more warnings just a cold shower and a weekend vacation.


Otherwise, enjoy the thread and just say NO to ManRam.

Mickster
11-30-2006, 10:39 AM
OK, some folks in this thread need to relax and argue their point without all of the condescending bull**** attached. There will be no more warnings just a cold shower and a weekend vacation.


Otherwise, enjoy the thread and just say NO to ManRam.

:D:

Flight #24
11-30-2006, 10:39 AM
For those who slept through the 2006 season (and judging from this thread, there were a lot of you), the Sox' main problems were:

1. The starting pitching declined significantly from 2005.
2. The bullpen blew more games than I want to count.
3. Both the top and the bottom of the order was MIA through most of the season.

The one area in which they got consistent production was the middle of the batting order, with their 3-4-5 hitters all turning in .900+ OPS, combining for 121 HR and 342 RBI.

So how to fix this, given finite financial resources and a few good players available to trade? Blow the whole wad on ANOTHER middle of the order hitter and hope to pound out enough runs to make up for all the other deficiencies. That approach has worked so well in the past.

Lots of flaws in this argument.
1) The "mash" approach didn't work in the past because it was paired with subpar pitching, particularly among the starters. Like it or not, the starters are what they are and there's no upgrade there (and even E.Santana is a relatively lateral move albiet a younger/cheaper one).

2) What you're really offering up is a choice between starting Pods in LF and having a bullpen with Thornton-MacDougal-Jenks-Cordero and a choice between starting Manny in LF and going with Aardsman-Thornton-MacDougal-Jenks. I'm not really convinced that Jenks makes an effective MR in the first place, and I am quite happy with Thornton & MacDougal. So the upgrade from Aardsma as the 4th reliever isn't really worth the offensive cliff that one falls off of from Manny to Pods.

3) Diminishing returns doesn't really work when you're talking about the change from an offensive sinkhole to a top 5 hitter. That's a significant upgrade to the overall O.

maurice
11-30-2006, 10:41 AM
The bottom line is that the Sox still have multiple needs to fill and limited resources (payroll and players to trade) that can be used to fill those needs. Ramirez is a great power hitter, but he doesn't address a major need. OTOH, he expends a lot of resources (and he's a pud). As we learned in 2005, we're better off spreading the resources over several players, so that we can upgrade at multiple positions. "Ramirez or Podsednik" is a false dichotomy.

For example, Crisp is not a Hall of Fame player, but he's at least a marginal upgrade over Podsednik and better than a lot of the names being tossed around these forums. Moreover, it's not clear at this point that KW will be able to get a better replacement for Podsednik. (If he can, then forget the whole thing.) Meanwhile, Crisp would cost relatively little and allow KW to expend the rest of his limited resources addressing other needs, like the bullpen.

It would be silly to disregard the possibility if it turns out that the only alternative acceptable to Ozzie is to start Podsednik again next year.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 10:50 AM
Lots of flaws in this argument.
1) The "mash" approach didn't work in the past because it was paired with subpar pitching, particularly among the starters. Like it or not, the starters are what they are and there's no upgrade there (and even E.Santana is a relatively lateral move albiet a younger/cheaper one).

2) What you're really offering up is a choice between starting Pods in LF and having a bullpen with Thornton-MacDougal-Jenks-Cordero and a choice between starting Manny in LF and going with Aardsman-Thornton-MacDougal-Jenks. I'm not really convinced that Jenks makes an effective MR in the first place, and I am quite happy with Thornton & MacDougal. So the upgrade from Aardsma as the 4th reliever isn't really worth the offensive cliff that one falls off of from Manny to Pods.

3) Diminishing returns doesn't really work when you're talking about the change from an offensive sinkhole to a top 5 hitter. That's a significant upgrade to the overall O.

It makes more sense to give 3 relievers $2-3 million each, knowing that at least one of them will fail. It's like picking stocks...you rate of return is much higher not putting all your eggs in one basket, unless you simply luck out with that one bet.

If Jenks is healthy, he's your closer.

Getting Cordero moves Bobby to a role that might be uncomfortable for him....if he goes south, MacDougal is injured and Thornton struggles with command, where does that leave the pen???

spiffie
11-30-2006, 10:56 AM
I don't understand this. Trading for Manny Ramirez is more likely than trading for bullpen arms? Just because there have not been rumors circulating about who they could trade for, does not mean it's unlikely.

"The only place you might get two bullpen arms who have any sort of track record for Freddy/Javy/MB is across town with Howry/Eyre, and that is unlikely."

Again...trading one of our starters for Manny Ramirez is likely, but trading one of our starters for relief pitching is "unlikely". This makes no sense...starting pitching is much more valuable than relief pitching. Some team will get desperate for starting pitching, and Kenny will get what he wants. What team, who needs good starting pitching, wouldn't give up a couple of bullpen arms for it? You're telling me that the Flubs wouldn't take any one of those three for Howry and Eyre? That's ridiculous, they would be ripping us off.

I know I keep saying this, but relievers are very inconsistent...they can be had for starting pitching. Especially considering how much our pitching is worth on the market now, after the contracts some of these guys are getting. The more mediocre free agents that get signed to massive contracts, the more valuable our starting pitching gets. So to say that we cannot get relief help from our starting pitching surplus is ridiculous. This is just an excuse so we can go get Manny and re-center our team around hitting the long ball.
So relievers are very inconsistent, starting pitching is very valuable, and you want to trade that gold-like commodity for relief pitching, even though getting multiple relievers would be ripping us off in an example you mention above.

Yes, some teams are desperate for a starter, but they are not going to raze their entire bullpen, which is seemingly what you would consider a fair trade. We're not going to get Joe Nathan and 2 middle relief guys from the Twins for Freddy. Anaheim isn't swinging K-Rod and Sheilds for Freddy. Any trade we make where we swap starters for relievers would be horribly unbalanced against us because of that. If there were lots of teams with extremely deep bullpens I would say maybe it could work out like we want. But the best return we might get is a couple of mediocre arms where we hope one of them will bust out, or maybe one consistent reliever and a couple of crap shoot guys. It simply would make no sense at all for a team to trade multiple long-term consistent bullpen guys, mostly because few teams even have such a thing. How many teams can you think of who have more than 2 guys in their pen with a long term record of success? Usually there's a closer, and 1, maybe 2 set-up men who a team feels good with.

And yes, that's why I said the Cubs, because while I find the trade unlikely due to the Cubs being in seemingly "must-win" mode and thus unlikely to trade veterans, they might be the only team willing to do that sort of deal, figuring they have Wood and Cotts to fill those places. But then, you think one of our starters for two guys who combined for a 3.26 ERA in 136 innings last year would be getting ripped off, so I'm wondering exactly what sort of return you are looking for from one of our starters.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 10:57 AM
As many people have pointed out, starters are much more valuable than relievers. People salivate over Scott Shields. Do you really think he's untouchable? Almost anyone could be had for the right package, and a solid starter getting WAY below market value, coupled with a GG-caliber 3B who's still cheap for 2 more years is one hell of a package. Consider the trade rumors for Figgins+Santana: but do you really think they'd turn down Figgins+Shields instead? Santana is much more valuable than Shields. Look around the league and there are many more solid relievers that you could get in a package.

Carl Crawford is another of everyone's fave. Do you really think the Sox couldn't get him for Garcia+Crede? It might take a 3-way because the Rays would be looking for prospects, but Garcia+Crede would be more than enough to return the prospects the Rays would accept.

When you have a package as valuable as Garcia+Crede, there are many, many possibilities to get what the Sox actually need. Why pass those up for another middle-of-the order hitter?

maurice
11-30-2006, 11:08 AM
I seriously doubt that you're gonna see a Sox starter traded straight up for a couple of relievers. IIRC, KW already has said that any trade for a Sox starter will have to include a top pitching prospect who can start for the team in 2008 or a starting position player. In other words, it will be a major deal.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 11:25 AM
I seriously doubt that you're gonna see a Sox starter traded straight up for a couple of relievers. IIRC, KW already has said that any trade for a Sox starter will have to include a top pitching prospect who can start for the team in 2008 or a starting position player. In other words, it will be a major deal.I didn't mean it would be a straight-up deal. It's unlikely a team would part with TWO good relievers. But it could include one solid reliever as part of the package, and depending on what they got back, Kenny could be in position to make a trade with another team for a second reliever.

Fenway
11-30-2006, 11:29 AM
NY Times makes the case that Boston would be insane to move Manny.

Ramírez Simmers on the Hot Stove (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/sports/baseball/30chass.html?ref=sports)
By MURRAY CHASS
The Red Sox have tried to get rid of Manny Ramírez so often you can never be sure when, if ever, they are serious.

palehozenychicty
11-30-2006, 11:32 AM
NY Times makes the case that Boston would be insane to move Manny.

Ramírez Simmers on the Hot Stove (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/sports/baseball/30chass.html?ref=sports)
By MURRAY CHASS
The Red Sox have tried to get rid of Manny Ramírez so often you can never be sure when, if ever, they are serious.

Sure, it may minimally affect their profit margin. :redneck

cws05champ
11-30-2006, 12:17 PM
Manny is not coming to the South side, let's face it. We do not need to tie up 18-20M for the next 4 years(2 option years that Manny's agent would sure want picked up in a trade). I agree that we have some flaws that need to be fixed but adding Manny in LF just doesn't fly with some of the long-term finances. Next year JD, Tadahito, MB, among other are up for Free agency....wouldn't you like to see all of them back for 3+ years?

I would like to see Crede stay because he is under control for the next 2 years and we have a team RIGHT NOW that has a small window to go for it again. If KW can flip Garcia for Otsuka and Danks, great! Otsuka gives us another quality reliver this year, and Danks can come up with Broadway in 2008 to go with McCarthy, Garland and hopefully Buehrle.

oeo
11-30-2006, 12:30 PM
So relievers are very inconsistent, starting pitching is very valuable, and you want to trade that gold-like commodity for relief pitching, even though getting multiple relievers would be ripping us off in an example you mention above.

Yes, some teams are desperate for a starter, but they are not going to raze their entire bullpen, which is seemingly what you would consider a fair trade. We're not going to get Joe Nathan and 2 middle relief guys from the Twins for Freddy. Anaheim isn't swinging K-Rod and Sheilds for Freddy. Any trade we make where we swap starters for relievers would be horribly unbalanced against us because of that. If there were lots of teams with extremely deep bullpens I would say maybe it could work out like we want. But the best return we might get is a couple of mediocre arms where we hope one of them will bust out, or maybe one consistent reliever and a couple of crap shoot guys. It simply would make no sense at all for a team to trade multiple long-term consistent bullpen guys, mostly because few teams even have such a thing. How many teams can you think of who have more than 2 guys in their pen with a long term record of success? Usually there's a closer, and 1, maybe 2 set-up men who a team feels good with.

And yes, that's why I said the Cubs, because while I find the trade unlikely due to the Cubs being in seemingly "must-win" mode and thus unlikely to trade veterans, they might be the only team willing to do that sort of deal, figuring they have Wood and Cotts to fill those places. But then, you think one of our starters for two guys who combined for a 3.26 ERA in 136 innings last year would be getting ripped off, so I'm wondering exactly what sort of return you are looking for from one of our starters.

First of all, I never said I wanted the Sox to trade a starter just for relievers. I was just pointing out the fact that we can get solid relievers through trade.

Secondly, Garcia for Eyre/Howry is a ripoff. Garcia is a proven, veteran, horse. I doubt Howry and Eyre put up their numbers in the AL...I think they were overpaid last year, and I still think they're overpaid.

Our starting pitching is very valuable in this market, I expect a big return for any of our starters, and if we're not going to get a big return, we shouldn't even make a move.

Fenway
11-30-2006, 12:31 PM
Steve Phillips reached a new low last night

from boston.com

http://www.boston.com/sports/nesn/wilbur/sports_blog/blog/


Can I get a raise of hands from the five people who take anything any ESPN analyst says seriously?

Last night, Steve Phillips, who is almost illogically proving himself to be as bad a TV talking head as he was a general manager, said -- on national TV, not in some barroom where the day-old Pabst is starting a film on the plank floor -- that if the Red Sox were to trade Manny Ramirez, they would attempt to sign Barry Bonds to play left field. Right, dude.

Gordon Edes reports today that a Red Sox insider denied that claim

meanwhile Curt Schilling tells us
I've spoken with Manny and Manny does want to be traded. Manny wants to play somewhere else (http://cbs4boston.com/video/?id=26517@wbz.dayport.com).

Frater Perdurabo
11-30-2006, 12:31 PM
:tomatoaward :tomatoaward

I'm throwing tomatoes at Manny the man-child.

Fenway
11-30-2006, 01:59 PM
If this rumor out of San Diego is true and Theo really wants to move Manny, I doubt he can get much more than this



On the Manny Ramirez front, Padres CEO Sandy Alderson and General Manager Kevin Towers didn't return phone calls on the subject yesterday. A club official didn't respond when asked to comment on a report that the Padres have offered pitcher Jake Peavy and first baseman Adrian Gonzalez – sought by Boston when he was a member of the Rangers – as part of a package for Ramirez.
The Red Sox are known to covet several young Dodgers and would prefer to engage both San Diego and Los Angeles, among others, in a bidding duel.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061130/news_1s30padres.html

maurice
11-30-2006, 02:03 PM
I didn't mean it would be a straight-up deal.

I know. I was responding to the folks who said that it's crazy to trade a starter for relievers.

CLR01
11-30-2006, 02:09 PM
If this rumor out of San Diego is true and Theo really wants to move Manny, I doubt he can get much more than this



http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061130/news_1s30padres.html


Please take the deal Theo. :praying:


I'll even kick in MLB 2k7 for PS3 to get it done.

Flight #24
11-30-2006, 02:31 PM
Please take the deal Theo. :praying:


I'll even kick in MLB 2k7 for PS3 to get it done.

That is a pretty good deal for the Red Sox. Dump the whole contract and get an established young ace caliber pitcher? Peavy's under contract for $4.75M in '07 and $8M in 08 with a team option for $8M in 09. That's Adam Eaton money for a fairly young guy with a career ERA of 3.5 and WHIP of 1.22 (yes I know it's been in Petco, but those are still very good #s).

Oh yeah, and they get a young 1B who batted over .300 with 24HRs (in the same pitchers park)?

Nice haul. I don't see it happening.

maurice
11-30-2006, 02:48 PM
the Padres have offered pitcher Jake Peavy and first baseman Adrian Gonzalez – sought by Boston when he was a member of the Rangers – as part of a package for Ramirez.

What's the missing piece of the package? Boston paying 100% of Ramirez's remaining salary?

CLR01
11-30-2006, 02:54 PM
What's the missing piece of the package? Boston paying 100% of Ramirez's remaining salary?

The package is coming from San Diego and it is Jake Peavy and Adrian Gonzalez for Manny.


"as part of a package for Ramirez" not including Manny.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 03:07 PM
If this rumor out of San Diego is true and Theo really wants to move Manny, I doubt he can get much more than this



http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061130/news_1s30padres.html


That's a real smart deal for Boston to do. Dang---Manny's price is high!

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 03:11 PM
That's a real smart deal for Boston to do. Dang---Manny's price is high!This is coming out of a San Diego newspaper. Unless San Diego sportswriters are very different from sportswriters everywhere else, there's no assurance that this has any more substance than a snowflake.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 03:23 PM
This is coming out of a San Diego newspaper. Unless San Diego sportswriters are very different from sportswriters everywhere else, there's no assurance that this has any more substance than a snowflake.

well may or not be true. But if that's the cost of Manny, I don't want Kenny to bite

spiffie
11-30-2006, 03:25 PM
well may or not be true. But if that's the cost of Manny, I don't want Kenny to bite
This I'll agree with. If Boston is just looking to dump the guy that's one thing. If freaking Jake Peavy is the price...no thanks.

Craig Grebeck
11-30-2006, 03:31 PM
We could get a mighty nice package for Dye! Not advocating it, but my oh my...

mjmcend
11-30-2006, 03:43 PM
Ichiro would have a positive influence because he plays the game the way it's supposed to be played. You can't say that about most superstars.



Come watch Ichiro play when the Mariners are tanking. He jogs down the first base line. Ichiro wants to win, which is why it is rumored he wants out of Seattle when his contract is up.

Fenway
11-30-2006, 05:08 PM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said

Manny update: Closer to home, suitors for Manny Ramirez were still lining up. ESPN's Peter Gammons added the White Sox to the mix Tuesday, along with the Giants, Padres and Dodgers. The White Sox are reportedly attempting to trade for Angels starter Ervin Santana, who could then be flipped to Boston, perhaps with 23-year-old righthander Brandon McCarthy, for Ramirez.


http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:

CLR01
11-30-2006, 05:12 PM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said



http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:


:praying: As a White Sox fan. Of course I am praying that an asteroid takes out all of KW's communication with the outside world and that that trade never happens.


Gammons has too much free time.

TheOldRoman
11-30-2006, 05:21 PM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said



http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:
:o:
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I would not trade ONE of the best young pitchers in the game for two years, $40mil of a selfish, lazy slugger with a bad attitude, let alone TWO of them. That is insane.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 05:34 PM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said



http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:

This is the worst trade rumor of the offseason so far...

Two affordable, potential top-of-the-line starters for Ramirez?

The only way would be if the Red Sox were paying the TOTALITY of his contract (which he could turn around and spend on pitching)...but who were we trading to get Santana, Crede?

So Crede + Santana + McCarthy EQUALS Ramirez????

OKAY...sure.

Maybe the Red Sox are just going to put in a bid to pay half of the White Sox payroll the next three years and they will be able to take five players off our roster each year? What next?

JermaineDye05
11-30-2006, 05:35 PM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said



http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:

That's just idle speculation, Kenny's not that dumb.

I hope :(:.

MRM
11-30-2006, 05:40 PM
Still, since we all agree that the pitching was the problem in 2006, why do some prefer to augment the offense instead of improving the pitching?

Because one does not preclude the other. It's not an either/or situation. If you can do BOTH, you end up with a much better team overall.

soxinem1
11-30-2006, 05:49 PM
Why so much eagerness for Manny and, gulp, Pods twin brother Figgins?

MRM
11-30-2006, 05:56 PM
Why so much eagerness for Manny and, gulp, Pods twin brother Figgins?

Because it's been speculated that Manny will be available below market value. You can't just ignore one of the greatest hitters of this generation if he's cheap enough. Got me on Figgins.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 06:00 PM
Why so much eagerness for Manny and, gulp, Pods twin brother Figgins?

Hawk always liked Figgins hustle and some people here think Hawk is a good source of baseball knowledge:(:

mjmcend
11-30-2006, 06:01 PM
So Crede + Santana + McCarthy EQUALS Ramirez????


Your math doesn't add up. It would just be Crede + McCarthy for Ramirez assuming we could get Santana for just Crede, which i doubt. Anyway you look at it, it is an idiotic trade from the point of the White Sox.

mjmcend
11-30-2006, 06:03 PM
Hawk always liked Figgins hustle and some people here think Hawk is a good source of baseball knowledge:(:

Hawk also has a man cruch on Nook Logan. Wonder what it would cost to get him?

jabrch
11-30-2006, 06:14 PM
After Manny was put in irrevocable waivers just a few years ago, I find it hard to imagine he'd cost Santana and Brandon.

I'd love to have Manny in the lineup, but not at that price.

oeo
11-30-2006, 06:28 PM
How does that ****ty trade make the Sox better? Oh yeah, it doesn't. :bs:

Kenny = smart. Theo = dumb. I find it hard to believe that Theo can rip off Kenny.

maurice
11-30-2006, 06:42 PM
The White Sox are reportedly attempting to trade for Angels starter Ervin Santana, who could then be flipped to Boston, perhaps with 23-year-old righthander Brandon McCarthy, for Ramirez.

Yeah, and maybe the DRays will send us Crawford and Kazmir for Ross Gload.

Why do editors allow their employees to make up ridiculous deeppink crap and then print it? Is there some requirement that you have to be a lazy, mindless pud to work as a sportwriter in this country?

infohawk
11-30-2006, 06:44 PM
Who cares what their OBP is? Tell me what their SLG is. That's your 3/4/5/6 hitters. You don't evaluate them on OBP. OPS, SLG, RC, whatever...but OBP?
Of course slugging is important, but you can have prolific sluggers with terrible .OBP. The all-or-nothing types. Actually, we should probably compare .OPS -- on-base percentage plus slugging percentage. That's the ideal hitting metric.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 07:04 PM
Of course slugging is important, but you can have prolific sluggers with terrible .OBP. The all-or-nothing types. Actually, we should probably compare .OPS -- on-base percentage plus slugging percentage. That's the ideal hitting metric.

EQA is the ideal metric b/c it doesn't overrate SLG:redneck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQA

soxinem1
11-30-2006, 07:06 PM
Hawk always liked Figgins hustle and some people here think Hawk is a good source of baseball knowledge:(:

This may be true, but Hawk hasn't been GM in 20 years. During his GM tenure he liked Wayne Tolleson as a 3B, thought Grady Hall would be an ace lefty one day, and Joel Skinner was a better option as a starting catcher over Carlton Fisk.

Though I am a Hawk fan in many ways, I sure hope KW is not using him as a tiebreaker when deciding trade options.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 07:16 PM
This may be true, but Hawk hasn't been GM in 20 years. During his GM tenure he liked Wayne Tolleson as a 3B, thought Grady Hall would be an ace lefty one day, and Joel Skinner was a better option as a starting catcher over Carlton Fisk.

Though I am a Hawk fan in many ways, I sure hope KW is not using him as a tiebreaker when deciding trade options.

I was talking about people on the board.

God forbid Hawk was actually influencing Kenny's decisions!:o::o::o:

I would have to go become a Devil Rays fan or something:mad:

dickallen15
11-30-2006, 07:22 PM
I was talking about people on the board.

God forbid Hawk was actually influencing Kenny's decisions!:o::o::o:

I would have to go become a Devil Rays fan or something:mad:
Hawk actually does have Kenny's ear. If it wasn't for Hawk's lobbying, the White Sox catchers for the 2005 season would have been Ben Davis and Jaime Burke or Chris Widger. AJ would have been somewhere else, so probably would have been the WS trophy.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 07:23 PM
Hawk actually does have Kenny's ear. If it wasn't for Hawk's lobbying, the White Sox catchers for the 2005 season would have been Ben Davis and Jaime Burke or Chris Widger. AJ would have been somewhere else, so probably would have been the WS trophy.

uh oh! i guess it's time to become a devil ray's fan:whiner::whiner::whiner:

A. Cavatica
11-30-2006, 07:29 PM
We could get a mighty nice package for Dye! Not advocating it, but my oh my...

Would Ichiro be in that package? 'cause that's about the only way it would be worth considering.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 07:33 PM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said



http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:Is that all, or would they have to include Jon Garland, too?

dickallen15
11-30-2006, 07:35 PM
uh oh! i guess it's time to become a devil ray's fan:whiner::whiner::whiner:
At least good seats are still available.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 08:16 PM
Your math doesn't add up. It would just be Crede + McCarthy for Ramirez assuming we could get Santana for just Crede, which i doubt. Anyway you look at it, it is an idiotic trade from the point of the White Sox.


Unless the White Sox received $50 million dollars in cash with Ramirez.

Don't think that one would be approved by Selig.

barney27
12-01-2006, 06:45 AM
God, I'm tired of this.


Anyways, I would be ok with Manny, but I really hate the idea of cutting defense for the long ball. Thats not how we won the World Series in 05.

Maybe you could trade Thome to make room for him as a DH, but then again I really don't want to trade Thome either.
Just curious but haven't everyone and their mothers been bashing Pods for his D (rightfully so). So how is it that now we are cutting defense?

Fenway
12-01-2006, 08:31 AM
another clue

If Boston is indeed going to tender an offer to Trot Nixon it would indicate they are going to have an opening in the outfield. They would not pay that kind of money for him to be on the bench.

In a decision that would lend further credence to the possibility of Manny Ramírez being traded, the Red Sox are likely to offer salary arbitration to free agent outfielder Trot Nixon by today's deadline, according to a source with ties to the team.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/12/01/sox_nixon_in_07/

samram
12-01-2006, 08:41 AM
Is that all, or would they have to include Jon Garland, too?

They would probably throw Dye in too just to help out the Boston offense in case the Drew thing falls through.

Goose
12-01-2006, 09:15 AM
The Hartford Courant ( A Tribune paper ) said



http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/redsox/hc-redsox1129.artnov29,0,923670,print.story?coll=hc-redsox-headlines

As a Red Sox fan :praying:

I can see KW leaking that information himself...

And somewhere in a cigar-smoke filled room is laughing his ass off because some Boston reporter took it seriously enough to report it. I guess sports reporters these days don't think about what they have heard...just in the ear and out the mouth.

That deal is so ridiculous, I would poke myself in the eye with a rusted nail if it ever came to fruition.

Fenway
12-01-2006, 09:29 AM
Curt Schilling certainly sounds like someone who doesn't want Manny back

http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/projo_20061201_01curt.307a6a2.html



"I think the belief is that trading Manny, and bringing somebody in, would be more valuable than having a Manny here that didn't play," Schilling said.

"I believe that if they don't trade him . . . " he added, and then paused. Apparently not wanting to follow through on that thought, he said, "My hope and belief is that he'll stay and play like he always has. But I'm not so sure that that's the case anymore. And that concerns me, because in the last year of my career I want to win a World Series."


What is known is Manny wants to stay in the AL and has said he would veto a trade to the NL. Maybe that has changed now but if it comes down to Texas and the White Sox it is a pretty safe bet Manny would pick Chicago.

It going to be a fun week in Orlando. I just want this to end.

The Immigrant
12-01-2006, 09:39 AM
Curt Schilling certainly sounds like someone who doesn't want Manny back

http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/projo_20061201_01curt.307a6a2.html



What is known is Manny wants to stay in the AL and has said be would veto a trade to the NL.

So Manny has limited himself to AL teams that are willing to pick up his two option years, and any such team would have to agree to a trade that the Boy Wonder can sell to his fanbase and the Boston media? Somehow I don't see this one happening.

palehozenychicty
12-01-2006, 09:43 AM
Curt Schilling certainly sounds like someone who doesn't want Manny back

http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/projo_20061201_01curt.307a6a2.html



What is known is Manny wants to stay in the AL and has said be would veto a trade to the NL. Maybe that has changed now but if it comes down to Texas and the White Sox it is a pretty safe bet Manny would pick Chicago.

It going to be a fun week in Orlando. I just want this to end.

I know that tact isn't Curt Schilling's strong suit, but just be quiet sometimes.

Fenway
12-01-2006, 09:49 AM
So Manny has limited himself to AL teams that are willing to pick up his two option years, and any such team would have to agree to a trade that the Boy Wonder can sell to his fanbase and the Boston media? Somehow I don't see this one happening.

As least for now the White Sox are off the radar with the Boston Globe at least.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/thebuzz/

As I said earlier in the thread, if Boston does offer arbitration to Nixon then Manny is going somewhere. Most Red Sox fans are very nervous as they really doubt that Theo knows what he is doing.

Flight #24
12-01-2006, 09:56 AM
As least for now the White Sox are off the radar with the Boston Globe at least.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/thebuzz/

As I said earlier in the thread, if Boston does offer arbitration to Nixon then Manny is going somewhere. Most Red Sox fans are very nervous as they really doubt that Theo knows what he is doing.

If he can get Peavy for Manny and not send any cash along, that's an absolute coup. I'm inclined to think that Sany Alderson's not going to provide that, and I didn't see any indication that Peavy was actually in the discussion, just pure speculation by the author and that that's who the Red Sox wanted.

Well similarly, I'm sure KW would like to trade Garcia for Johan Santana, but it ain't happening.