PDA

View Full Version : WHo Else Wants To Dump Contreras And Vazquez?


Thome25
06-19-2007, 11:37 AM
In light of the rumors of Buehrle and Dye going to the Mets, who else would rather see Vazquez and/or Contreras dumped on a team like the Mets or any other team for that matter?

Do you think there'd be interest in Vazquez and Contreras?

sox1970
06-19-2007, 11:44 AM
In light of the rumors of Buehrle and Dye going to the Mets, who else would rather see Vazquez and/or Contreras dumped on a team like the Mets or any other team for that matter?

Do you think there'd be interest in Vazquez and Contreras?

I wish the Sox were focusing on trading Vazquez and Contreras, but I don't see how other teams would want to take on their contracts.

Extending Vazquez 3 years will prove to be the worst move Kenny makes. He's just finds a way to lose.

There's something backwards about Buehrle and Garland signed through 2007 and 2008, and Contreras and Vazquez signed through 2009 and 2010.

Would it surprise anyone if Garland was traded too? I don't want it to happen, but since he almost went to Houston last offseason, it appears Kenny isn't against trading him too.

getonbckthr
06-19-2007, 11:44 AM
In light of the rumors of Buehrle and Dye going to the Mets, who else would rather see Vazquez and/or Contreras dumped on a team like the Mets or any other team for that matter?

Do you think there'd be interest in Vazquez and Contreras?
There will always be interest in pitching especially proven pitching. I say get rid of Jose but keep Javy. Considering the market just hold onto him.

Thome25
06-19-2007, 11:46 AM
I wish the Sox were focusing on trading Vazquez and Contreras, but I don't see how other teams would want to take on their contracts.

Extending Vazquez 3 years will prove to be the worst move Kenny makes. He's just finds a way to lose.

There's something backwards about Buehrle and Garland signed through 2007 and 2008, and Contreras and Vazquez signed through 2009 and 2010.

Would it surprise anyone if Garland was traded too? I don't want it to happen, but since he almost went to Houston last offseason, it appears Kenny isn't against trading him too.

Vazquez's contract is a deal for any team....even for a pitcher of his caliber. Look at the guys the Flubs signed.

In today's pitching market Javy's contract seems to be at or below market value.

sox1970
06-19-2007, 11:49 AM
Vazquez's contract is a deal for any team....even for a pitcher of his caliber. Look at the guys the Flubs signed.

In today's pitching market Javy's contract seems to be at or below market value.

I guess if you want a sub .500 pitcher for the next three years, Javy is your man.

Thome25
06-19-2007, 11:51 AM
I guess if you want a sub .500 pitcher for the next three years, Javy is your man.

Look at a pitching starved team like the Mets. Javy would be a pretty good back of the rotation guy for a team like them.

Especially in the NL.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 12:14 PM
I see the fanatical Vazquez hating still runs wild...

Lip Man 1
06-19-2007, 12:14 PM
Given the two I'd prefer to trade Jose in the off season if possible. The Sox however may have to pay part of his salary to another team to get that done however.

Lip

sox1970
06-19-2007, 12:21 PM
I see the fanatical Vazquez hating still runs wild...

What is there to like about him? He loses more than he wins, and he doesn't throw enough quality starts. A three year extension wasn't earned, especially in the American League. He's an NL pitcher.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 12:28 PM
What is there to like about him? He loses more than he wins, and he doesn't throw enough quality starts. A three year extension wasn't earned, especially in the American League. He's an NL pitcher.

I'm not ga-ga over him but there are a lot of false ideas people have about him i.e. he can't win or blows leads.

sox1970
06-19-2007, 12:36 PM
I'm not ga-ga over him but there are a lot of false ideas people have about him i.e. he can't win or blows leads.

Javier Vazquez Facts:
45 starts with the Sox.
19 quality starts.
The Sox are 18-27 in his 45 starts. (.400 winning percentage)
He is 14-17 with a 4.71 ERA.

I rest my case.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 12:58 PM
Javier Vazquez Facts:
45 starts with the Sox.
19 quality starts.
The Sox are 18-27 in his 45 starts. (.400 winning percentage)
He is 14-17 with a 4.71 ERA.

I rest my case.

Out of those 27 losses and at the point Vasquez left the game, the Sox offense spotted him 2 runs five times, 1 run seven times and 0 runs 5 times. That works out to 17 runs across 17 games. Vazquez's ERA isn't anything to write home about but the run support he gets is atrocious. Looking at Vazquez's W-L record tells very little about what kind of pitcher he is.

oeo
06-19-2007, 01:03 PM
I wish the Sox were focusing on trading Vazquez and Contreras, but I don't see how other teams would want to take on their contracts.

Extending Vazquez 3 years will prove to be the worst move Kenny makes. He's just finds a way to lose.

For the last time, it isn't a bad contract and he took a ****ing paycut.

There's something backwards about Buehrle and Garland signed through 2007 and 2008, and Contreras and Vazquez signed through 2009 and 2010.Maybe Contreras and Vazquez were more willing to sign? If either of them wanted 4+ years, they probably wouldn't be signed either. And Buehrle was offered a pretty fair contract last year, in midst of his worst year of his career, and turned it down. Now Buehrle looks very smart for turning that down because the market took a drastic turn over the offseason, so he can command 3-5 million more, but at the time, it was a fair deal.

Would it surprise anyone if Garland was traded too? I don't want it to happen, but since he almost went to Houston last offseason, it appears Kenny isn't against trading him too.We still don't know if that trade was true. And the way some people want to start over and rebuild, why would Garland being traded even matter? That's what people want around here, is it not?

kevin57
06-19-2007, 02:09 PM
I continue to believe that Vazquez is more than capable of being a good starter, certainly a quality fourth or fifth guy.

Contreras is old and not able to recover from injuries anymore. We used to joke about Jose's real age. I think that question is now solved.

DumpJerry
06-19-2007, 04:16 PM
Kenny: Ignore what the above posters are saying and do not trade any of the starters. They are pretty much getting the job done. If they had run and bullpen support we expect of the team, there would be not talk about unloading them.

Memo to those of you who want to unload one of our starters: who will replace those starter who are departed? Don't tell me we will trade a starter for a starter, that just won't happen.

The Immigrant
06-19-2007, 04:36 PM
Memo to those of you who want to unload one of our starters: who will replace those starter who are departed? Don't tell me we will trade a starter for a starter, that just won't happen.

Gio Gonzales and Gavin Floyd are both putting up impressive numbers in the minors. I'd give them a chance to replace Contreras and Vazquez if (i) we could receive a meaningful return in any trade of either Jose or Javy and (ii) the team puts the payroll savings (approximately $20 million annually) towards signing FAs for the outfield and the bullpen.

WhiteSox5187
06-19-2007, 04:37 PM
Kenny: Ignore what the above posters are saying and do not trade any of the starters. They are pretty much getting the job done. If they had run and bullpen support we expect of the team, there would be not talk about unloading them.

Memo to those of you who want to unload one of our starters: who will replace those starter who are departed? Don't tell me we will trade a starter for a starter, that just won't happen.
If we still suck in July towards the trading deadline, I would have no reservations about trading Jose and calling up Floyd. Might as well see what he can do.

DickAllen72
06-19-2007, 04:40 PM
who else would rather see Vazquez and/or Contreras dumped on a team like the Mets or any other team for that matter?

Dumped? NO! Traded? Yes.

I think contending teams would definitely trade for one of them near the deadline. I'd like to see the Sox ask the world for Buehrle, turn down the counter offers they receive, and then try to substitute one of the other guys in for the same deal. Of course I want them to re-sign Mark as well.

DickAllen72
06-19-2007, 04:43 PM
Look at a pitching starved team like the Mets. Javy would be a pretty good back of the rotation guy for a team like them.

Especially in the NL.
Javy (or Jose) for Pelfrey and Milledge. The Mets will probably say no. No deal then. The Sox don't have to trade anybody.

jenn2080
06-19-2007, 05:11 PM
I will take a dumping of Javy. I will help him pack and make sure he gets to the airport on time. Jose I would be 50/50 on. I would be sad to see him go, but I would not be opposed.

JohnTucker0814
06-19-2007, 05:22 PM
Javy (or Jose) for Pelfrey and Milledge. The Mets will probably say no. No deal then. The Sox don't have to trade anybody.

I'd take Milledge straight up for Javy or Jose...

socko82
06-19-2007, 06:46 PM
Contreras and Vazquez both are signed for market value contracts and neither contract is exactly long term. Mediocre, injury plagued pitchers (Meche, Lilly, Schmidt) all over baseball were getting 10 million/year plus last winter and teams are going to be paying it again this winter. Any team trading for either Vazquez or Contreras would be locking up market value for a #3 for a couple of years. Does a team offer you a better package for a player they know they will control for a couple of years than for a rent a player such as Buehrle?
Also as money is no object to the Mets, could they possibly bite, thinking El Duque might be able to help straighten out Contreras and offer Milledge? Of course they might also think he couldn't handle New York the first time so why bring him back.

JB98
06-19-2007, 06:50 PM
I will take a dumping of Javy. I will help him pack and make sure he gets to the airport on time. Jose I would be 50/50 on. I would be sad to see him go, but I would not be opposed.

That's pretty much my thoughts as well. I'd move Jose if the deal was right. Javy, I'd unload for peanuts if someone would take his contract.

Frater Perdurabo
06-19-2007, 07:37 PM
Putting contract issues aside, here are Sox starting pitchers listed in order of my willingness to trade them, from "most willing" to "least willing."

1. Contreras
2. Vazquez
3.
4.
...
8,999 Danks
9,000 Garland
9,0001 Buehrle

That being said, I agree with Dump that the rotation is not the place to go trading players; it's the one part of the team that is working right!

However, if KW plans to fold on 2007 and re-shuffle the deck, I'd sign Buehrle and dangle both Contreras and Vazquez. Whomever fetches the better offer in return would be the one to go.

CWSpalehoseCWS
06-19-2007, 10:22 PM
Contreras should be moved if possible. He's getting old and i doubt that he can produce anymore. Vazquez is a deal. Who can ask for more from a #4 starter. Look at his stats, granted his record is under .500, but so is Contreras. And Vazquez K's alot of batters. We got a deal on Vazquez. He's not meant to be an ace, he's a back of the rotation guy.

Hitmen77
06-19-2007, 11:27 PM
I wish the Sox were focusing on trading Vazquez and Contreras, but I don't see how other teams would want to take on their contracts.

Extending Vazquez 3 years will prove to be the worst move Kenny makes. He's just finds a way to lose.

I think they're both definitely tradeable. Neither are injured and are, at worst, mediocre. Their contracts aren't insanely high or insanely long.

I would like to see the Sox trade Jose this winter. I think he's on the decline and this offseason is the time to unload him and his contract before his performance really drops off.

There's something backwards about Buehrle and Garland signed through 2007 and 2008, and Contreras and Vazquez signed through 2009 and 2010. Of course, that's just due to timing of when their contracts were extended. But, yes, I think it's BACKWARDS that the Sox look to be building their future rotation around Contreras and Vazquez instead of Buehrle and Garland. They could free up about $20 million in payroll by trading JC and JV and use part of that $ to lock in MB and JG as a solid foundation of our rotation as new pitchers come onboard. Instead, we're going down the path of letting MB and then a year later JG go and keeping the other guys. That sounds like a recipe for mediocrity if I ever heard one.

Would it surprise anyone if Garland was traded too? I don't want it to happen, but since he almost went to Houston last offseason, it appears Kenny isn't against trading him too.

I don't know how true those reports of Garland to Houston were, but - no, I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox trade Garland because he'll be entering his walk year next year.

WhiteSox5187
06-20-2007, 12:41 AM
I would love to see the Sox trade both Jose (who I believe is now about eighty years old) and Javy and use the money to re-sign Buerhle and Garland. But I don't think that will happen. I wouldn't be shocked to see both Buerhle and Garland gone and Kenny building around Jose and Javy. It would be a bone headed thing to do, but...I do think that Kenny has a bit of Jerry Krause in him where he thinks "I'm so much SMARTER than everyone else!" And will make moves to show it. I hope I'm totally wrong there. But I wouldn't be shocked to see Garland and MB gone and Jose and Javy sticking around.:whiner:

jabrch
06-20-2007, 12:41 AM
I'd take Milledge straight up for Javy or Jose...

That would be a horrible deal for us. Milledge is their third best OF prospect. He'd also be our 3rd (at best) best OF prospect. If we trade with the Mets for an outfielder, we better get Martinez or Gomez.

jabrch
06-20-2007, 12:46 AM
But, yes, I think it's BACKWARDS that the Sox look to be building their future rotation around Contreras and Vazquez instead of Buehrle and Garland.

They will build their rotation around guys who are willing to sign contracts that fit within the parameters of what this franchise is willing to do. If Mark wants 5/75 or more, he will be gone. If Mark wants 3/42, he'd stay. If he wants Zito money or Schmidt money, or even Zambrano money, he's gone. Same for Gar. We have him now because he extended out his deal before hitting FA. If he wants to go to FA and test the waters, he likely gets dealt and capitalized upon. This is an easy formula - and it makes sense. Don't handcuff yourself to any one deal that could become potentially very bad for a very long term. Keep your deals short enough that you are never toast if you have one or two bad injuries.

I think it is smart managing by KW.

UserNameBlank
06-20-2007, 01:08 AM
I would love to see the Sox trade both Jose (who I believe is now about eighty years old) and Javy and use the money to re-sign Buerhle and Garland. But I don't think that will happen. I wouldn't be shocked to see both Buerhle and Garland gone and Kenny building around Jose and Javy. It would be a bone headed thing to do, but...I do think that Kenny has a bit of Jerry Krause in him where he thinks "I'm so much SMARTER than everyone else!" And will make moves to show it. I hope I'm totally wrong there. But I wouldn't be shocked to see Garland and MB gone and Jose and Javy sticking around.:whiner:

I could see Javy, but I seriously doubt Jose is in a Sox uniform by the time ST 2008 rolls around. The only way that happens IMO is if he gets injured or something and loses all value. KW does have to keep at least one of Burls/Garland though if he wants to contend anytime in the next 3 years.

UserNameBlank
06-20-2007, 01:14 AM
They will build their rotation around guys who are willing to sign contracts that fit within the parameters of what this franchise is willing to do. If Mark wants 5/75 or more, he will be gone. If Mark wants 3/42, he'd stay. If he wants Zito money or Schmidt money, or even Zambrano money, he's gone. Same for Gar. We have him now because he extended out his deal before hitting FA. If he wants to go to FA and test the waters, he likely gets dealt and capitalized upon. This is an easy formula - and it makes sense. Don't handcuff yourself to any one deal that could become potentially very bad for a very long term. Keep your deals short enough that you are never toast if you have one or two bad injuries.

I think it is smart managing by KW.

I've agreed with this in the past, but if the market is going to be like it is for several more years, KW is screwing the organization over with this approach. Unless he can get very, very, very lucky and end up with 5 solid MLB starters through the draft and trades, including one ace and at least two or three no. 2's, this isn't going to work for him. If he wants his pitchers to sign 3 year contracts in the 10-12 mil per range, he's going to have a hell of a time finding anyone better than a no.3 starter.

WhiteSox5187
06-20-2007, 01:14 AM
I could see Javy, but I seriously doubt Jose is in a Sox uniform by the time ST 2008 rolls around. The only way that happens IMO is if he gets injured or something and looses all value. KW does have to keep at least one of Burls/Garland though if he wants to contend anytime in the next 3 years.
I think that he needs to keep BOTH of them if he wants to contend in 2008. I also think that this team has the finicial resources to keep both of them for a long time, but that would mean dumping guys like JD, Jose and maybe even Javy. I'm just not so sure that Kenny is willing to do that. It usually takes Kenny awhile to realize he's made a mistake.

UserNameBlank
06-20-2007, 01:20 AM
I think that he needs to keep BOTH of them if he wants to contend in 2008. I also think that this team has the finicial resources to keep both of them for a long time, but that would mean dumping guys like JD, Jose and maybe even Javy. I'm just not so sure that Kenny is willing to do that. It usually takes Kenny awhile to realize he's made a mistake.
I agree with you and want both re-signed, but that doesn't look like it will happen. Whether it is the workings of Kenny or JR or a combination of both, the lack of negotiations with Mark right now is not a good sign for the future. The team is losing and if you want to keep one of the best SP in franchise history, you have to start talking now before he hits FA. I have every reason to believe Mark's agent will listen to the Sox, but have heard or read nothing that makes me think the Sox will bend an inch for their camp. If this means the end of Buehrle and Garland it will be a very sad thing.

WhiteSox5187
06-20-2007, 01:31 AM
I agree with you and want both re-signed, but that doesn't look like it will happen. Whether it is the workings of Kenny or JR or a combination of both, the lack of negotiations with Mark right now is not a good sign for the future. The team is losing and if you want to keep one of the best SP in franchise history, you have to start talking now before he hits FA. I have every reason to believe Mark's agent will listen to the Sox, but have heard or read nothing that makes me think the Sox will bend an inch for their camp. If this means the end of Buehrle and Garland it will be a very sad thing.
I agree one hundred percent. Someone once said that us letting go of Buerhle might be akin to the Cubs letting Maddux walk after 1992...that could be the case. I don't think Mark is as good a pitcher as Maddux was, but I think he still means an awful lot to this franchise. To lose BOTH Mark and Garland would be an incredibly stupid desicion and for me would remove all the crediblity that Kenny gained from the '05 World Series.

Hitmen77
06-20-2007, 11:01 AM
They will build their rotation around guys who are willing to sign contracts that fit within the parameters of what this franchise is willing to do. If Mark wants 5/75 or more, he will be gone. If Mark wants 3/42, he'd stay.
I understand the reason, but I disagree with it.

If he wants Zito money or Schmidt money, or even Zambrano money, he's gone. Same for Gar. We have him now because he extended out his deal before hitting FA. If he wants to go to FA and test the waters, he likely gets dealt and capitalized upon.
I agree with this. If MB wants a Zito-type contract and won't accept something like 5/75, then goodbye. That's too much.

This is an easy formula - and it makes sense. Don't handcuff yourself to any one deal that could become potentially very bad for a very long term. Keep your deals short enough that you are never toast if you have one or two bad injuries.

I think it is smart managing by KW.

How do you define "very long term"? If we're talking about a 5 year deal, that's only one more year than the Sox locked up Javy and 34 yr old Contreras. So locking up an aging Contreras for 4 years is acceptable but locking up a younger Buehrle for 5 years is risking being very bad for a very long term?

I think the overall philosophy about no long term deals for pitchers is indeed "smart" managing by the Sox. However, the problem is that they are making this an absolute philosophy. No exceptions....every pitcher is the same. Buehrle=Vazquez=Contreras=Navarro. Mark Buehrle is just another pitcher. That's not smart managing - that's just setting ourselves up for years of mediocre pitching.

GoSox2K3
06-21-2007, 09:33 AM
They will build their rotation around guys who are willing to sign contracts that fit within the parameters of what this franchise is willing to do. If Mark wants 5/75 or more, he will be gone. If Mark wants 3/42, he'd stay. If he wants Zito money or Schmidt money, or even Zambrano money, he's gone. Same for Gar. We have him now because he extended out his deal before hitting FA. If he wants to go to FA and test the waters, he likely gets dealt and capitalized upon. This is an easy formula - and it makes sense. Don't handcuff yourself to any one deal that could become potentially very bad for a very long term. Keep your deals short enough that you are never toast if you have one or two bad injuries.

I think it is smart managing by KW.

I'm sure we'll all be comforted for the next few years by the fact that the Sox are the smartest-managed 4th place team in baseball (actually, I think the position on contracts for pitchers is JR's, not KW's).

I guess it's more important to keep mediocre pitchers who will sign for 3 yrs/33 million than to offer at least 5/75 for a young, proven, finese, lefthanded, durable winner who can anchor a rebuilt starting rotation. No, Mark Buehrle is not in the same class as Johan Santana. I highly doubt MB will be a hall of famer. But, I know what Mark Buehrle could be to this franchise - he could be a guy that ends up with his face and # on the LF wall at the Cell. Contreras is not, Vazquez is most certainly not, I doubt Garland would qualify.

But, hey, we're better off treating him the same way we treat proven losers like Vazquez or aging pitchers like Contreras. Nope, Mr. Buerhle gets not one dime more. Woohoo! We're smart! I hope we have a "best fiscal team" trophy tour! Take that Jamie Navarro!

I guess the Sox are just going to hope to catch lightning in a bottle with Gavin Floyd or Gio Gonzalez and have them become the next Mark Buehrle. Sounds like very much a long shot to me. We are certainly NOT going to acquire any current MLB pitchers that are even close to Mark's caliber for 3 yrs/33 million.

It's one thing if Mark was just one of those guys who went out and hired Boras and is just gunning for a Zito-like 7 year contract. But he claims he's not and the Sox should put him to the test by giving him a 5/75 type offer.

We're not Kansas City - we're in the 3rd largest market in America and drew 3 million fans last year. We could sign Mark, trade Vazquez for more talent AND cut the amount of $$$ devoted to our starting rotation next year.

I guess we're just going to go through yet another era where the Sox squander the fans goodwill and watch our market share erode as we slide into mediocrity. I really find it hard to believe that a Sox rotation anchored by Javy and Jose is going to be anything but mediocre over the next few years.

Yeah, the Sox suck this year and changes need to be made to the team. But, I don't think we're going to improve anything by letting go one of only 3 players on our roster this year who doesn't either suck or is constantly injured.

Lip Man 1
06-21-2007, 01:20 PM
Go Sox:

Well stated.

Lip

GoSox2K3
06-21-2007, 03:55 PM
Go Sox:

Well stated.

Lip

Thanks.

To clarify, IMO the only 3 players on this team this year who I alluded to who have played well enough for a contending team are Jenks, Garland, and Buehrle. Everyone else is seriously underperforming, missed a significant number of games due to injury, or are rookies who will go through struggles (Danks, Fields).

So, after this disaster of a season, one of the most certain things that will happen for next year is that we're letting one of the 3 go after only giving him what amounts to a low-ball offer in today's market?:?: Good God, if you think this year sucks - just wait until next year.:(:

I wonder how much this stance with Buehrle is going to cost the Sox in ticket sales next year. Regardless, sales will take somewhat of a hit next year the way this season is going. But how much of a hit will fan interest and sales take after Buehrle leaves because the Sox think he's only worthy of Vazquez's salary. I have to imagine it'll be a noticable hit. Sure, not enough of a difference to make up for the savings on Mark's salary. But, once again the White Sox will be the "penny wise and pound foolish" franchise. They'll pat themselves on the back for "learning from the Jamie Navarro contract" and in the meantime, sit back and watch market share momentum in this town fizzle once again.

GoSox2K3
06-21-2007, 04:04 PM
...one more thing - since the Sox put actuarial principals above all else, I am surprised that they'd keep going with Contreras instead of Buehrle since Jose is 36 (reported age) and looks like he could be a season away from a serious decline.

Is the risk of five more years of a 28 year old finesse pitcher with no injury history that much greater than 2 more years of a 36 year old pitcher who is fading and has had injury problems?

Of course, it may very well be that the Sox plan to let Mark walk and also trade Jose for as much as we can (in a Garcia-type deal) - leaving two holes in our rotation.

Bill Naharodny
06-21-2007, 10:33 PM
I would love to see the Sox trade both Jose (who I believe is now about eighty years old) and Javy and use the money to re-sign Buerhle and Garland. But I don't think that will happen. I wouldn't be shocked to see both Buerhle and Garland gone and Kenny building around Jose and Javy. It would be a bone headed thing to do, but...I do think that Kenny has a bit of Jerry Krause in him where he thinks "I'm so much SMARTER than everyone else!" And will make moves to show it. I hope I'm totally wrong there. But I wouldn't be shocked to see Garland and MB gone and Jose and Javy sticking around.:whiner:

I hope you're wrong, too. But I don't think you are. You've described Kenny's attitude, particularly this past off-season, very accurately. The man -- or his boss (and yes, Krause and Williams both worked for Jerry Reinsdorf, so read into that what you will) -- were utterly contemptuous of where the market was going for pitching. Yet again, we're assured that the franchise has made a "fair" offer to Buehrle, just like a "fair" offer was made to Horace Grant so many years ago. Whatever. Pay the people who've performed, not a mediocrity like Vazquez.

WhiteSox5187
06-21-2007, 11:31 PM
I hope you're wrong, too. But I don't think you are. You've described Kenny's attitude, particularly this past off-season, very accurately. The man -- or his boss (and yes, Krause and Williams both worked for Jerry Reinsdorf, so read into that what you will) -- were utterly contemptuous of where the market was going for pitching. Yet again, we're assured that the franchise has made a "fair" offer to Buehrle, just like a "fair" offer was made to Horace Grant so many years ago. Whatever. Pay the people who've performed, not a mediocrity like Vazquez.
GoSox2k3 just posted something that is a lot better than anything I can say on the matter. But ultimately the market is what the market is and if you're going to sit there and pout saying "I don't like the market!" well then you're not going to be very good. At the same time, I don't exactly think it's written in stone that MB will walk. But it seems to me that Kenny took a very, I'm not so sure that this is the right word here but I'll try, pretentious attitude towards the pitching market and particularly MB.

The Dude
06-21-2007, 11:32 PM
In light of the rumors of Buehrle and Dye going to the Mets, who else would rather see Vazquez and/or Contreras dumped on a team like the Mets or any other team for that matter?

Do you think there'd be interest in Vazquez and Contreras?

Why is there a need to bring Dump into this?:?:

DrewSox56
06-21-2007, 11:42 PM
Kenny: Ignore what the above posters are saying and do not trade any of the starters. They are pretty much getting the job done. If they had run and bullpen support we expect of the team, there would be not talk about unloading them.

Memo to those of you who want to unload one of our starters: who will replace those starter who are departed? Don't tell me we will trade a starter for a starter, that just won't happen.

Man, do I ever agree. I just read through this whole thing and I wish I hadn't wasted that part of my life.

We can't ****ing hit - GET IT??????

We're the lowest scoring team in baseball period. We are no where near being the highest allowed earned, or even unearned, run team.

Enough dumbass-ness - SP is not the problem. BP could certainly use help.

Big problem - Need to ****ing hit.

The Immigrant
06-21-2007, 11:48 PM
GoSox:

I could not agree more with your posts. I, for one, will closely watch the personnel moves for the rest of this season before deciding whether to renew my season tickets. How the front office approaches the Buehrle situation will be a big part of that decision.

jdm2662
06-21-2007, 11:55 PM
I hope you're wrong, too. But I don't think you are. You've described Kenny's attitude, particularly this past off-season, very accurately. The man -- or his boss (and yes, Krause and Williams both worked for Jerry Reinsdorf, so read into that what you will) -- were utterly contemptuous of where the market was going for pitching. Yet again, we're assured that the franchise has made a "fair" offer to Buehrle, just like a "fair" offer was made to Horace Grant so many years ago. Whatever. Pay the people who've performed, not a mediocrity like Vazquez.

That fair offer to Grant was more than he signed with the Magic. Bad example. He was leaving no matter what. Considering he did an interview in the middle of the season saying he LOVED to be on the Magic, AND he got eaten alive by Oakley in the 94 playoffs AND despite being shocked the offer the Bulls gave him and still jumped, I did not shed a tear when he left. The Bulls turned out ok in the end, I think.

Let's see what happens before we all jump to conclusions. Kenny won't sit still. He's proven this in the past. It's just a matter if his plans will help improve the team. For those complaining about payroll, or implying it, keep in mind the Sox have a payroll over 100 mil that's pure crap. I sure as hell don't want to pay for losing. If losing Mark means improving the team, I'm all for it. I like Mark, but if the team will win more at the expense of losing Mark, I'm fine with it. So, it means they either have to sign him or trade him. I will be upset if they let him walk.

Bill Naharodny
06-22-2007, 03:37 AM
That fair offer to Grant was more than he signed with the Magic. Bad example. He was leaving no matter what. Considering he did an interview in the middle of the season saying he LOVED to be on the Magic, AND he got eaten alive by Oakley in the 94 playoffs AND despite being shocked the offer the Bulls gave him and still jumped, I did not shed a tear when he left. The Bulls turned out ok in the end, I think.

Let's see what happens before we all jump to conclusions. Kenny won't sit still. He's proven this in the past. It's just a matter if his plans will help improve the team. For those complaining about payroll, or implying it, keep in mind the Sox have a payroll over 100 mil that's pure crap. I sure as hell don't want to pay for losing. If losing Mark means improving the team, I'm all for it. I like Mark, but if the team will win more at the expense of losing Mark, I'm fine with it. So, it means they either have to sign him or trade him. I will be upset if they let him walk.

Jdm, I agree with a lot of what you've written here -- and I don't want to hijack this into a Horace Grant thread (that would be strange, indeed) -- BUT my memory of the Horace thing is a little different. The Bulls were a very good team that year, when Jordan was gone, and Grant was a huge part of it. In fact, even in the playoffs, Grant averaged 16 and 7. Yes, Horace he said he wanted out, but he often said such things.

No, instead we had the notorious "handshake agreement" between Reinsdorf and Grant, concluded without an agent because Reinsdorf (who'd made his living negotiating contracts) wanted to agree on a multimillion dollar deal with Horace Grant (who'd made his living trapping point guards and getting offensive rebounds), man-to-man, which was a bunch of garbage. Then, of course, when Grant left, the Bulls ran him down in the media, which is a Reinsdorf organization specialty (see Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, McCarthy, et al). And the Bulls ended up okay only because Jordan came back the next year, which put the pressure on Krause to get another power forward, who turned out to be Rodman.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there, I guess. I agree with you that it will be upsetting if Mark merely walks.

Lip Man 1
06-22-2007, 12:15 PM
Bill:

FYI:

"When Horace Grant left Reinsdorf’s office, he said he called his agent Jimmy Sexton from his car phone. Sexton described him as ‘very emotional.’

‘Jimmy, the guy just tried to negotiate with me without getting you involved.’ Sexton had Grant fax over the piece of paper they had scribbled on, the proposed contract in Reinsdorf’s view. ‘I swear on my grandfather’s grave, I didn’t agree to anything,’ said Grant, who related that same story, off the record, to at least one reporter. ‘If I did agree, then why didn’t I just sign the paper?.’

Sexton’s biggest problem with Reinsdorf’s storyis that this somehow was a ‘spur of the moment’ offer. ‘If your going to do a handshake deal with a player...I don’t think you take the time to write it on a legal pad and ask the player to sign it.’ ‘He talks about the morality of sports,’ Grant said. ‘Why would anyone want to negotiate with me without my representative there?’– Horace Grant and Jimmy Sexton to Melissa Issacson. From the book ‘Transition Game’ by Melissa Issacson. Pgs.77- 79. Published 1994.

Lip

redsand22
06-22-2007, 12:33 PM
I'd love to see Mark re-signed and Jon signed to a longer deal. I'd tolerate Javy as a #4 starter. I'd like to see Jose traded.

Hitmen77
06-22-2007, 03:11 PM
Let's see what happens before we all jump to conclusions. Kenny won't sit still. He's proven this in the past. It's just a matter if his plans will help improve the team. For those complaining about payroll, or implying it, keep in mind the Sox have a payroll over 100 mil that's pure crap. I sure as hell don't want to pay for losing. If losing Mark means improving the team, I'm all for it. I like Mark, but if the team will win more at the expense of losing Mark, I'm fine with it. So, it means they either have to sign him or trade him. I will be upset if they let him walk.

I agree - we really can't know how this will all settle out until all the moves between now and the end of the offseason are done.

I guess, right now, I have a hard time imagining how losing Mark will help the team. Yes, we have alot of holes to fill, but it won't matter if we fill them next year if our starting pitching declines significantly. We'd still have Garland (barring a trade of course) as a solid starter, but after that, we're looking at a serious dropoff. Jose is on the decline and I wouldn't count on him having a good year next year. Javy isn't going to change his healthy-good stuff-but still losing ways. After that we have some promising rookies - but we may be asking too much to expect Danks, Gio, and/or Floyd to fill that void.

I'm not sure how much the $9 million freed up from Mark's departure (or the $15 million not spent on a new annual salary for Mark, if you will) is going to get the Sox. We all like to look at the example of the Sox telling Maggs and Boras to take a hike, dumping Lee and then using that money for Dye, AJ, El Duque and Iguchi. Not to downplay KW's genius, but how likely are we to have that work out that well for us again? I'd have to say it was part genius and part good fortune that a bunch of bargain retreats and unknowns all performed so well. No matter how smart KW is, let's not fool ourselves into thinking it'll all happen perfectly like that again.

Finally, I bolded your last statement because I agree. If the Sox are really just going to not budge from a 3 yr/$35 million offer to Mark - they KNOW he's not going to accept that. If that's their final offer, they should trade him by the deadline and get as much as we can in return. I'm sure our team will be worse next year without Mark, but at least get some talent for him and not just a sandwich pick.

PaulDrake
06-22-2007, 03:16 PM
I see the fanatical Vazquez hating still runs wild... It's not fanatical, it's pretty level headed if you ask me. The guy's just not that good, and apparently never will be. You can predict with a high degree of frequency when he's going to do a meltdown on the mound. I prefer guys with power arms and sharp movement on their pitchers. Javy is the kind of guy I'd really like to see do well. He continues to disappoint, and I for one have lost faith.

jdm2662
06-22-2007, 05:58 PM
I agree - we really can't know how this will all settle out until all the moves between now and the end of the offseason are done.

I guess, right now, I have a hard time imagining how losing Mark will help the team. Yes, we have alot of holes to fill, but it won't matter if we fill them next year if our starting pitching declines significantly. We'd still have Garland (barring a trade of course) as a solid starter, but after that, we're looking at a serious dropoff. Jose is on the decline and I wouldn't count on him having a good year next year. Javy isn't going to change his healthy-good stuff-but still losing ways. After that we have some promising rookies - but we may be asking too much to expect Danks, Gio, and/or Floyd to fill that void.

I'm not sure how much the $9 million freed up from Mark's departure (or the $15 million not spent on a new annual salary for Mark, if you will) is going to get the Sox. We all like to look at the example of the Sox telling Maggs and Boras to take a hike, dumping Lee and then using that money for Dye, AJ, El Duque and Iguchi. Not to downplay KW's genius, but how likely are we to have that work out that well for us again? I'd have to say it was part genius and part good fortune that a bunch of bargain retreats and unknowns all performed so well. No matter how smart KW is, let's not fool ourselves into thinking it'll all happen perfectly like that again.

Finally, I bolded your last statement because I agree. If the Sox are really just going to not budge from a 3 yr/$35 million offer to Mark - they KNOW he's not going to accept that. If that's their final offer, they should trade him by the deadline and get as much as we can in return. I'm sure our team will be worse next year without Mark, but at least get some talent for him and not just a sandwich pick.

Well, when the Indians traded Colon, they got back Grady Seizemore and Cliff Lee. A trade like that would certainly help. It's just a matter of such trade is possible. Still, you cannot let him walk if you aren't going to sign him. If the Sox could trade Harold (JR's favorite player), they can trade Mark.

Hitmen77
06-22-2007, 06:22 PM
Well, when the Indians traded Colon, they got back Grady Seizemore and Cliff Lee. A trade like that would certainly help. It's just a matter of such trade is possible. Still, you cannot let him walk if you aren't going to sign him. If the Sox could trade Harold (JR's favorite player), they can trade Mark.

Oh, absolutely - that's why I said I agreed with the last statement in your previous post.

Bill Naharodny
06-22-2007, 08:04 PM
Bill:

FYI:

"When Horace Grant left Reinsdorf’s office, he said he called his agent Jimmy Sexton from his car phone. Sexton described him as ‘very emotional.’

‘Jimmy, the guy just tried to negotiate with me without getting you involved.’ Sexton had Grant fax over the piece of paper they had scribbled on, the proposed contract in Reinsdorf’s view. ‘I swear on my grandfather’s grave, I didn’t agree to anything,’ said Grant, who related that same story, off the record, to at least one reporter. ‘If I did agree, then why didn’t I just sign the paper?.’

Sexton’s biggest problem with Reinsdorf’s storyis that this somehow was a ‘spur of the moment’ offer. ‘If your going to do a handshake deal with a player...I don’t think you take the time to write it on a legal pad and ask the player to sign it.’ ‘He talks about the morality of sports,’ Grant said. ‘Why would anyone want to negotiate with me without my representative there?’– Horace Grant and Jimmy Sexton to Melissa Issacson. From the book ‘Transition Game’ by Melissa Issacson. Pgs.77- 79. Published 1994.

Lip

Thanks, Lip. That's how I remember it being told.