PDA

View Full Version : Random trade idea


whitesoxfan1986
07-11-2007, 09:46 PM
There is some logic behind this idea, so bear with me.
Proposal:Contreras and Broadway for AJ Burnett.
Rationale: Kenny has always had a hard on for Burnett, as he did Vazquez. Burnett's $11 million/year for 3 more years after this one is basically the same as Javy's salary, and if he stays healthy, the contract is a steal. Furthermore Riccardi and Burnett had a war of words in the media, where Riccardi basically called Burnett a sissy, so Riccardi may want to move him and his salary. Granted he is a health risk, but if he stays healthy the move looks ingenious. Furthermore it gives the team flexibility to ship off Garland to the highest bidder. I know we all love Jon, but at their best Burnett is more dominant. Trading Garland could help solve many of our position woes. It would make sense because if we can find an adequate 5th starter from within, a pretty good rotation would be in place for the next 3 years with Buehrle/Vazquez/Burnett/Danks/one of Masset/Floyd/Gonzalez/Egbert.

santo=dorf
07-11-2007, 09:49 PM
aj burnett sucks

gene

...and since when has KW "always" liked AJ? All I remember is the rumor in 2005 by the Snore. I wouldn't put too much stock in it as I don't recall the Sox being linked to him when he was a free agent.

Tragg
07-11-2007, 10:02 PM
Burnett's $11 million/year for 3 more years after this one is basically the same as Javy's salary, and if he stays healthy, the contract is a steal..
He doesn't stay healthy and Riccardi's comments were on the money - he doesn't want to pitch.
I didn't understand the fascination with this .500 pitcher in 2005 ("elite" "the best of the best") and, well, he hasn't changed.

Talk about some 1000 post long threads - check out the AJ Burnett ones from 2 years ago.

DrewSox56
07-11-2007, 10:21 PM
Burnett is absolutely filthy when he's on, that's why the fascination, but it's too inconsistent, and like Tragg mentioned - his own manager questions his mental toughness and heart.

Don't think that Contreras for Burnett would work for us. And Toronto would also have to pony up $ to get trade approval so not in a million, now that I think about it.

whitesoxfan1986
07-11-2007, 10:48 PM
aj burnett sucks

gene

...and since when has KW "always" liked AJ? All I remember is the rumor in 2005 by the Snore. I wouldn't put too much stock in it as I don't recall the Sox being linked to him when he was a free agent.
The trade in 2005 fell through because he didn't sign an extension within the 72 hr. window. If he would have re-signed it would have been a done deal. I believe the trade was McCarthy, Anderson, and some other prospect. Contreras was not involved, IIRC. So, for the rest of the season we would have had a rotation of Buehrle/Garcia/Jose/Garland/Burnett.
The whole point of making this trade is to give the Sox the flexibility of moving Garland for a ****load in return.

DrewSox56
07-11-2007, 10:57 PM
The trade in 2005 fell through because he didn't sign an extension within the 72 hr. window. If he would have re-signed it would have been a done deal. I believe the trade was McCarthy, Anderson, and some other prospect. Contreras was not involved, IIRC. So, for the rest of the season we would have had a rotation of Buehrle/Garcia/Jose/Garland/Burnett.

No, for the '06 season it would have left us with:

Buehrle/Garcia/Contreras/Garland/Burnett/Random Chaos for the other 10+ starts (and potential Ws) Burnett missed due to injury.

That's 30% of games expected of a SP and especially on a White Sox roster; a big deal. Not to mention the decline in all his other numbers and periphs since he left FL after '05.

No regrets.

whitesoxfan1986
07-11-2007, 11:13 PM
No, for the '06 season it would have left us with:

Buehrle/Garcia/Contreras/Garland/Burnett/Random Chaos for the other 10+ starts (and potential Ws) Burnett missed due to injury.

That's 30% of games expected of a SP and especially on a White Sox roster; a big deal. Not to mention the decline in all his other numbers and periphs since he left FL after '05.

No regrets.
I am actually glad that we didn't make that trade because of the injury last year, but how do you know he still gets injured on the Sox? Furthermore, IMO Danks>Burnett. I was just stating that there is a possibility that if that trade is made Cleveland never gets as close to us as they did. But now, the trade I proposed makes sense because you can move Garland to fill multiple holes elsewhere, and the downgrade(if you can call it that, it could be lateral or an upgrade. Let's not forget that Burnett has a no hitter on his resume) from Garland to Burnett would improve multiple positions on the Sox, with an overall upgrade of the team. But, however, I'm not sure that this trade would even be a possibility. It is most likely improbable.

DrewSox56
07-11-2007, 11:49 PM
I am actually glad that we didn't make that trade because of the injury last year, but how do you know he still gets injured on the Sox?

Are you suggesting that he pitches according to the uniform he's wearing?

Furthermore, IMO Danks>Burnett. I was just stating that there is a possibility that if that trade is made Cleveland never gets as close to us as they did.So what. Close.... who got the ring?


But now, the trade I proposed makes sense because you can move Garland to fill multiple holes elsewhere, and the downgrade(if you can call it that, it could be lateral or an upgrade. Let's not forget that Burnett has a no hitter on his resume) from Garland to Burnett would improve multiple positions on the Sox, with an overall upgrade of the team. But, however, I'm not sure that this trade would even be a possibility.You lost me. Are you suggesting that having Burnett today would give us decent July trade bait at this point in '07? I'm totally confused by this.

It is most likely improbable.Yes, probably.

whitesoxfan1986
07-12-2007, 12:06 AM
Are you suggesting that he pitches according to the uniform he's wearing?

So what. Close.... who got the ring?

You lost me. Are you suggesting that having Burnett today would give us decent July trade bait at this point in '07? I'm totally confused by this.

Yes, probably.
1) I don't know what I was thinking with that comment. I guess it is a parallel universe type thing.
2) You're right it is a moot point now, but it could have helped then. Whatever.
3) Absolutely. That is the whole point. By trading for Burnett, it gives the Sox the flexiblity to trade Garland either at the deadline or in the offseason to the highest bidder for positions which fill our needs, which ends up as an overall upgrade to the team, even if it is a slight downgrade at the SP position. You can get 10 times the talent in return for Garland than what you can get for Contreras.
4) I was just throwing an idea out there that could possibly help the Sox contend in 2008. I thought this up because of the comments that Riccardi made about Burnett, and I thought that Riccardi might be open to trading him.

DrewSox56
07-12-2007, 12:18 AM
1) I don't know what I was thinking with that comment. I guess it is a parallel universe type thing.
2) You're right it is a moot point now, but it could have helped then. Whatever.
3) Absolutely. That is the whole point. By trading for Burnett, it gives the Sox the flexiblity to trade Garland either at the deadline or in the offseason to the highest bidder for positions which fill our needs, which ends up as an overall upgrade to the team, even if it is a slight downgrade at the SP position. You can get 10 times the talent in return for Garland than what you can get for Contreras.
4) I was just throwing an idea out there that could possibly help the Sox contend in 2008. I thought this up because of the comments that Riccardi made about Burnett, and I thought that Riccardi might be open to trading him.

So, in this fantasy... we have Burnett right now and we're going to trade what for what? And Garland - Did we have him before, in spite of, or because of the Burnett trade?

And why in the blue ****ing hell would you be talking about trading Garland? We just re-signed him... He's our most consistent W maker over the last 2 seaons??!! Hell, 2 1/2 now. I sure do hope we could get more value for him than ol' Jose and his inconsistent ass!!!!

I'm not even touching where you were at on the last point... Someone else has to jump in and help out...

munchman33
07-12-2007, 12:29 PM
We have no use for Broadway, and Contreras obviously doesn't have it anymore. There are much worse things in today's market than A.J. Burnett at the back end of a rotation at $11 million a year.

Jerksticks
07-12-2007, 03:26 PM
Yea totally. Everyone shut up. Dude, suggested somethin and asked for opinions. Just say no without including why he is stupid. Unreal.

In my opinion, I don't think Burnet logs enough innings to pitch at the cell.

Matlock
07-13-2007, 03:18 AM
There is some logic behind this idea, so bear with me.
Proposal:Contreras and Broadway for AJ Burnett.
Rationale: Kenny has always had a hard on for Burnett, as he did Vazquez. Burnett's $11 million/year for 3 more years after this one is basically the same as Javy's salary, and if he stays healthy, the contract is a steal. Furthermore Riccardi and Burnett had a war of words in the media, where Riccardi basically called Burnett a sissy, so Riccardi may want to move him and his salary. Granted he is a health risk, but if he stays healthy the move looks ingenious. Furthermore it gives the team flexibility to ship off Garland to the highest bidder. I know we all love Jon, but at their best Burnett is more dominant. Trading Garland could help solve many of our position woes. It would make sense because if we can find an adequate 5th starter from within, a pretty good rotation would be in place for the next 3 years with Buehrle/Vazquez/Burnett/Danks/one of Masset/Floyd/Gonzalez/Egbert.


This deal sounds kind of one sided in the Blue Jays favor.

Boondock Saint
07-13-2007, 03:59 AM
This deal sounds kind of one sided in the Blue Jays favor.

First off, let me add to the list of people that wouldn't touch Burnett with a 10 foot pole. There's no denying that he's got gifts, but he can't stay healthy.

Now on to Matlock. Dude, you are SEVERELY over-valuing Contreras. He hasn't been good in quite some time now, and I can all but guarantee you that the Jays wouldn't take Contreras and Broadway for Burnett.

Mohoney
07-13-2007, 07:03 AM
I'd much rather do Contreras, Broadway, one of Phillips/Russel, and cash to offset Contreras' contract for Dontrelle Willis, if we can get him to agree to an extension in a 72 hour window.

Willis is most likely getting traded, and if we're trading prospects like Broadway, I think this is a better gamble than Burnett.

munchman33
07-13-2007, 09:08 AM
I'd much rather do Contreras, Broadway, one of Phillips/Russel, and cash to offset Contreras' contract for Dontrelle Willis, if we can get him to agree to an extension in a 72 hour window.

Willis is most likely getting traded, and if we're trading prospects like Broadway, I think this is a better gamble than Burnett.

The Marlins wouldn't want Contreras, money or not. And they'd require top tier prospects for Willis, especially with a signing window.

Tragg
07-13-2007, 09:27 AM
It's starting again.... the grass is always greener (especially if they're a Marlin).

MB wouldn't bring much of anything because he was a rent; but Willis, who has been an average pitcher for the last year, is worth numerous top prospects.