PDA

View Full Version : Sox possibly scouting Connor Jackson


julio-cruz
07-17-2007, 01:54 PM
Da' Link: http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2007/07/hearing-some-na.html

balke
07-17-2007, 02:00 PM
Jon Garland for Conor Jackson, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Flight #24
07-17-2007, 02:07 PM
Not a horrible deal to get Jackson for Jose (giving the Sox payroll savings and a decent LF bat with upside). Better yet if they can flip one of Floyd/Sisco/Masset for him.

I'd hope to do better, but unless Jose improves his performance, I'm not sure that that's realistic.

SoxxoS
07-17-2007, 02:09 PM
I bet something will get done here - I could defintiely see them taking Contreras to pitch with Livan Hernandez.

I don't want Chris Young - Ill take CoJack b/c he has a cooler nickname.

Actually, b/c he can rake and has a good eye. The power numbers are a little concerning, but you can make up power numbers in different ways in the american league. His OBP in the minors was .423, a DEFINITE welcome addition to a team that needs an increase in guys with good plate dicipline.

SoxxoS
07-17-2007, 02:10 PM
Not a horrible deal to get Jackson for Jose (giving the Sox payroll savings and a decent LF bat with upside). Better yet if they can flip one of Floyd/Sisco/Masset for him.

I'd hope to do better, but unless Jose improves his performance, I'm not sure that that's realistic.

Masset and Sisco couldn't get Mike Caruso if he was on their team. They are both really bad.

Getting CoJack for Contreras would be a steal.

Foulke You
07-17-2007, 02:12 PM
Conor Jackson's 2006 Minor League Stats:

.291 15HR 79RBI .368OBP .441SLG .809OPS
http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Conor%2bJackson&pos=1B&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&did=milb&pid=433582

He looks like he has some offensive upside but I hate projects and this sounds like a project on defense. If he is a 1B guy that doesn't mean he can play a good LF. I really don't want to downgrade our outfield defense especially with a flyball pitcher like Javy Vazquez on our staff.

Sargeant79
07-17-2007, 02:14 PM
Getting CoJack for Contreras would be a steal.

Agreed. My guess is it would take more to get him.

sox1970
07-17-2007, 02:17 PM
Masset and Sisco couldn't get Mike Caruso if he was on their team. They are both really bad.

Getting CoJack for Contreras would be a steal.

If that's what he'll be called here, I don't want him.

The Immigrant
07-17-2007, 02:19 PM
37 BB and only 26 SO for CoJack this year, resulting in an OBP of .364 despite a .262 batting average. Last year he finished with an OBP of .368. Oh, among the current White Sox players, only Konerko and Iguchi have more doubles (15) this year and that's in a lot fewer ABs.

If we could get this kid for Contreras without having to throw in a chunk of the old man's salary, I'd be very happy.

Rockabilly
07-17-2007, 02:19 PM
I can see a Garland going to the D Backs with a top prospect for Connor Jackson and Orlando Hudson

than we can trade Iguchi somewhere for some prospects

The Immigrant
07-17-2007, 02:22 PM
Conor Jackson's 2006 Minor League Stats

He spent the 2006 season with the big league club. I believe those are his MLB stats.

julio-cruz
07-17-2007, 02:23 PM
This team really needs players that have speed or can at least project some kind of presence on the base paths. let's hope that the Mets or some other team have more issues with their starters. Thus will feel the need to "over bid" for Contreras.

Chicken Dinner
07-17-2007, 02:23 PM
:hawk
Where's he gonna play?

MrX
07-17-2007, 02:25 PM
I can see a Garland going to the D Backs with a top prospect for Connor Jackson and Orlando Hudson

:o:

oeo
07-17-2007, 02:30 PM
I can see a Garland going to the D Backs with a top prospect for Connor Jackson and Orlando Hudson

than we can trade Iguchi somewhere for some prospects

Garland and a top prospect? That's a complete steal for the Diamondbacks.

Garland and Javy are guys that KW won't trade unless he gets some pitching in return. Contreras is different because frankly he sucks.

palehozenychicty
07-17-2007, 02:31 PM
If we can get him for just Contreras, I'm down. Contreras can't throw anymore.

julio-cruz
07-17-2007, 02:33 PM
If they trade Garland, they better fleece that team with at least one stud MLB ready player and one more "can't miss" prospect and a B prospect. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kenny do this with Arizona, Los Angeles or Colorado. Of course, once this happens Vasquez starts pitching like he used to-- sorry, had to invoke the sarcastic Chicago attitude there.

PatK
07-17-2007, 02:34 PM
If that's what he'll be called here, I don't want him.

Yes, can we please stop it with the stupid abbreviated nicknames?

Chicken Dinner
07-17-2007, 02:35 PM
Garland and a top prospect? That's a complete steal for the Diamondbacks.

Have you seen our prospects? :D:

oeo
07-17-2007, 02:38 PM
Have you seen our prospects? :D:

Yes, and that makes it an even worse deal for us. I see Sweeney and Gio as our two top guys...I'd be very reluctant to give either one up for a guy that does not fit the mold of this team (who knows how his defense is in left? I thought we wanted to get faster?) and a 2B (although very good) that will be a free agent after next year. And we're giving up Garland? :puking:

Law11
07-17-2007, 02:41 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2007/07/hearing-some-na.html

Let the rumblings begin I guess.
edit.. didnt see the thread in whats the score.. please delete if need be.. sorry mods.

salty99
07-17-2007, 02:44 PM
Hey dude what's the score?

lostfan
07-17-2007, 02:46 PM
Edit: Moving my post to the other thread

SoxxoS
07-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Yes, can we please stop it with the stupid abbreviated nicknames?

There really should stop with most names (First initial, first three letters of last name), but CoJack is a great nickname and has NO CHANCE of not sticking, so you better learn to love it.:o:

The Immigrant
07-17-2007, 02:49 PM
Yes, can we please stop it with the stupid abbreviated nicknames?

You got it, PatK.

SoxxoS
07-17-2007, 02:52 PM
You got it, PatK.

Now that was funny.

lostfan
07-17-2007, 02:52 PM
Meh, if they want Garland or Danks they can kiss my ass. Garland's been my favorite pitcher for a while - tough call over Buehrle - and I'm firmly placed on the Danks bandwagon right now.

In any case if they're talking about moving an infielder to left I'd rather see Fields go there b/c of his arm and have someone else play 3B. If I sound down on Fields' defense (and ironic last name) it's because literally almost every game I see Fields play in I see him boot a relatively easy grounder or drop it while he's switching to his throwing hand. Things a professional ballplayer in his mid 20s shouldn't be doing.

jabrch
07-17-2007, 02:58 PM
I wouldn't consider giving them Gar or Danks for Connor. Not even close. We need to use our chips to get pieces that are hard to replace, not a LF.

StepsInSC
07-17-2007, 02:58 PM
Yes, can we please stop it with the stupid abbreviated nicknames?

Agreed. Which is why if he ends up on the Sox, I will call him Coner.

soxinem1
07-17-2007, 03:00 PM
In any case if they're talking about moving an infielder to left I'd rather see Fields go there b/c of his arm and have someone else play 3B. If I sound down on Fields' defense (and ironic last name) it's because literally almost every game I see Fields play in I see him boot a relatively easy grounder or drop it while he's switching to his throwing hand. Things a professional ballplayer in his mid 20s shouldn't be doing.

I remember Vance Law, Robin Ventura, and Joe Crede all having their struggles defensively when they first came up or began playing 3B. While Fields may not develop into a GG type 3B, he shouldn't be in line for an Iron Glove Award.

I do think, however, that he may wind up in the OF or 1B, ala Carlos Lee, depending on how he develops as a hitter.

At the same token, I do not see how Connor Jackson coming to the Sox benefits us, unless he is flat out given away.

balke
07-17-2007, 03:01 PM
If this is true that means Thome or Konerko is gone. And by that I mean, Thome is gone.


Edit: which is why I don't think its true.

lostfan
07-17-2007, 03:09 PM
I remember Vance Law, Robin Ventura, and Joe Crede all having their struggles defensively when they first came up or began playing 3B. While Fields may not develop into a GG type 3B, he shouldn't be in line for an Iron Glove Award.

I do think, however, that he may wind up in the OF or 1B, ala Carlos Lee, depending on how he develops as a hitter.

At the same token, I do not see how Connor Jackson coming to the Sox benefits us, unless he is flat out given away.
Well I'm not old enough to recall Ventura when he first came up, I mean I was barely playing Little League then, but I don't remember Crede struggling nearly as bad as Fields is now. I don't think that Fields will suck as a 3B but I don't see him ever having a better glove than, say, Ozuna or Macowiak.

I'm no major league scout or anything, but I want to see how he works out in LF.

UserNameBlank
07-17-2007, 03:16 PM
I'll take anything for Jose. If it's Garland (since Javy won't go West) I want something much better, like Justin Upton + Quentin/Callaspo/Owings + Juan Cruz/Jose Valverde. I don't think AZ does a deal like that though so I'm guessing they are after Jose and maybe a bench guy or a reliever too, as Jackson for Jose straight up might be a bit of a steal right now all things considered.

Huisj
07-17-2007, 03:16 PM
Well I'm not old enough to recall Ventura when he first came up, I mean I was barely playing Little League then, but I don't remember Crede struggling nearly as bad as Fields is now. I don't think that Fields will suck as a 3B but I don't see him ever having a better glove than, say, Ozuna or Macowiak.

I'm no major league scout or anything, but I want to see how he works out in LF.

I think he already has a better glove at third than Ozuna, and heck, how many times have we seen Mackowiak play third since he's been here? Like maybe 4 or 5 times? First, how can you say he's better there if he never plays there, and second, why wouldn't he have played there more if he was decent at third base?

lostfan
07-17-2007, 03:22 PM
I think he already has a better glove at third than Ozuna, and heck, how many times have we seen Mackowiak play third since he's been here? Like maybe 4 or 5 times? First, how can you say he's better there if he never plays there, and second, why wouldn't he have played there more if he was decent at third base?
From what I've seen no, he doesn't have a better glove than Ozuna. I swear to god some of the plays I've seen him blow look like plays I could've made myself. I'm not kidding.

Macowiak played a lot of 3B with the Pirates... why is he playing almost exclusively outfield? Ask Ozzie, only he can explain his train of thought. Otherwise you're splitting hairs.

Madvora
07-17-2007, 03:24 PM
I don't know anything about this guy, but I don't feel right about picking up a guy and putting him in a postion that he's never played before. You might as well have kept Carlos Lee if you're looking for a LF hitter that isn't great in the field.

Foulke You
07-17-2007, 03:32 PM
He spent the 2006 season with the big league club. I believe those are his MLB stats.
Good catch, those stats were with the big club. Pretty decent numbers in the bigs. I'd trade Contreras, not Garland for him. I still hate converted outfielders. I've just soured on it after watching the misadventures of Mackowiak, Ozuna, and even Carlos Lee screw up in the outfield.

oeo
07-17-2007, 03:35 PM
Good catch, those stats were with the big club. Pretty decent numbers in the bigs. I'd trade Contreras, not Garland for him. I still hate converted outfielders. I've just soured on it after watching the misadventures of Mackowiak, Ozuna, and even Carlos Lee screw up in the outfield.

He actually played LF up to AA, where he was converted to a 1B, so he might not be bad. It's at least a different situation than Fields would be (never played the OF). For Contreras, I'll take anything. When you start talking Garland and Danks...no thank you.

Flight #24
07-17-2007, 03:38 PM
I can see a Garland going to the D Backs with a top prospect for Connor Jackson and Orlando Hudson

than we can trade Iguchi somewhere for some prospects

Isn't Hudson FA after this year? Why would we trade a good pitcher on a cheap contract for a guy who's not killing the ball, is rapidly going to be without a spot and a guy who we'd have for 2 months?:?:

Even if Hudson wasn't FA, I'd still not do that for Garland.

oeo
07-17-2007, 03:39 PM
From what I've seen no, he doesn't have a better glove than Ozuna. I swear to god some of the plays I've seen him blow look like plays I could've made myself. I'm not kidding.

He's booted a couple that have been terrible plays, but some are tough plays that Crede has been making look easy for years. He made a nice play in last night's game in the 8th.

lostfan
07-17-2007, 03:41 PM
He's booted a couple that have been terrible plays, but some are tough plays that Crede has been making look easy for years. He made a nice play in last night's game in the 8th.
I won't deny that watching Crede has raised my expectations unreasonably high.

lostfan
07-17-2007, 03:42 PM
Screw all of this talk. Contreras to the Mets for Reyes.

soxtalker
07-17-2007, 03:45 PM
From what I've seen no, he doesn't have a better glove than Ozuna. I swear to god some of the plays I've seen him blow look like plays I could've made myself. I'm not kidding.

Macowiak played a lot of 3B with the Pirates... why is he playing almost exclusively outfield? Ask Ozzie, only he can explain his train of thought. Otherwise you're splitting hairs.

Maybe the whole point of keeping Fields at 3B is to see if he can fill the role. If you shift him to outfield, you take advantage of his bat, but the Sox are probably still faced with a big issue at 3B -- and one which is probably more difficult to solve. I agree that Fields has struggled there, but he's got the rest of a lost season to work through his problems there. Mack might do a bit better there, but he's probably not much of a long-term solution.

lostfan
07-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Maybe the whole point of keeping Fields at 3B is to see if he can fill the role. If you shift him to outfield, you take advantage of his bat, but the Sox are probably still faced with a big issue at 3B -- and one which is probably more difficult to solve. I agree that Fields has struggled there, but he's got the rest of a lost season to work through his problems there. Mack might do a bit better there, but he's probably not much of a long-term solution.
Ok, I'll buy that. I mean outside of Fields there really is no other option at 3B. But what I was getting at earlier between my complaining is that I'm curious how Fields would do in left in the major leagues. I know it's not going to happen though, it's just a crazy thought.

UserNameBlank
07-17-2007, 03:48 PM
Isn't Hudson FA after this year? Why would we trade a good pitcher on a cheap contract for a guy who's not killing the ball, is rapidly going to be without a spot and a guy who we'd have for 2 months?:?:

Even if Hudson wasn't FA, I'd still not do that for Garland.
Hudson is a FA after '08 IIRC.

I agree with you though. Garland + a top prospect (Fields, Sweeney, Gio, Egbert?) for Jackson and Hudson would be bending over and taking it. KW supposedly was asking for Ellsbury + Buccholz from Boston and Salty + Escobar from Atlanta for a rental of Buehrle. For Garland he'd ask for even more, and probably could realistically settle for a package of that kind, although maybe not from one of those teams. And really, aside from Upton and maybe Tony Pena in their pen, nothing they have really excites me. If we're going to trade one of Javy/Jon, we had better get someone awesome.

Domeshot17
07-17-2007, 04:06 PM
I wonder if we could pull off a Contreras and Broadway for Jackson and Quentin trade. Would provide us with 2 promising hitters.

PatK
07-17-2007, 04:36 PM
You got it, PatK.

Set my self up for that one.

Although with the way people come up with those lame nicknames, it should be PaKu

Rockabilly
07-17-2007, 05:37 PM
Garland and a top prospect? That's a complete steal for the Diamondbacks.

Garland and Javy are guys that KW won't trade unless he gets some pitching in return. Contreras is different because frankly he sucks.


I meant to say Garland and lets say Broadway for Jackson, Hudson and Drew

We would have our SS and DH for next year.. If we do get Jackson he is no way playing LF next year. Thome will be gone

KRS1
07-17-2007, 05:59 PM
I meant to say Garland and lets say Broadway for Jackson, Hudson and Drew


The chances of AZ doing that deal are about as likely as us winning 30 straight.

SoxxoS
07-17-2007, 06:44 PM
The chances of AZ doing that deal are about as likely as us winning 30 straight.

I think its the other way around - Hudson is a journeyman careering it this year, decent player - Drew hasn't impressed me since last season although with decent potential - and CoJack I like quite a bit, but not for Garland.

oeo
07-17-2007, 06:52 PM
I think its the other way around - Hudson is a journeyman careering it this year, decent player - Drew hasn't impressed me since last season although with decent potential - and CoJack I like quite a bit, but not for Garland.

A journeyman? Orlando Hudson is a two-time Gold Glover with a career .277 BA. I'd take him as our 2B next year in a heartbeat.

KRS1
07-17-2007, 07:04 PM
I think its the other way around - Hudson is a journeyman careering it this year, decent player - Drew hasn't impressed me since last season although with decent potential - and CoJack I like quite a bit, but not for Garland.


If KW was offered that deal and turned it down he'd have to be pretty messed. I like JG as much as the next guy, but CJ AND DREW and an add in of Hudson is nothing to sneeze at. Drew is still a stud despite him struggling a bit as a 24 year old. A young SS who you can potentially build a line-up around is not something teams trade away every day unless they are getting equally great upside for in return, add another kid with a great bat and the fact they are under control for at least another 5 years, and tell me how it makes sense.

SoxxoS
07-17-2007, 07:14 PM
A journeyman? Orlando Hudson is a two-time Gold Glover with a career .277 BA. I'd take him as our 2B next year in a heartbeat.

I would take him to - He is just a decent player, however. Actually, he isn't THAT much better than Iguchi, IMO. A bit better, I agree - but if you take him out of the trade, you are offering

Drew and CoJack for Garland? Maybe I am just not as high on Stephen Drew.

The more I think about it, the more I warm to it, however, as Garland is gone after this year, correct?

KRS1
07-17-2007, 07:20 PM
I would take him to - He is just a decent player, however. Actually, he isn't THAT much better than Iguchi, IMO. A bit better, I agree - but if you take him out of the trade, you are offering

Drew and CoJack for Garland? Maybe I am just not as high on Stephen Drew.

The more I think about it, the more I warm to it, however, as Garland is gone after this year, correct?

Jon's contract isnt up until after 08'.

Tragg
07-17-2007, 07:27 PM
I can see a Garland going to the D Backs with a top prospect for Connor Jackson and Orlando Hudson

than we can trade Iguchi somewhere for some prospects
That would be the worst trade in the history of the White Sox. Garland for Jackson and Hudson would be an outrage by itself.

Maybe you meant Garland for Jackson, Hudson and a top prospect.

Hudson, offensively, is like Iguchi...a major trading chit for no upgrade in offense of the worst offensive team in baseball.

chisoxfan4life
07-17-2007, 07:35 PM
I didn't see this posted anywhere else, sorry if this rumor has already been discussed.

According to Rotoworld, Conor Jackson is demanding a trade out of Arizona and the D-Backs are shopping him to the Sox. They apparently want Garland or Danks, but the Sox would want another prospect in the deal.

http://rotoworld.com/content/HeadLines.aspx?sport=MLB&hl=216833

KRS1
07-17-2007, 07:35 PM
I didn't see this posted anywhere else, sorry if this rumor has already been discussed.

According to Rotoworld, Conor Jackson is demanding a trade out of Arizona and the D-Backs are shopping him to the Sox. They apparently want Garland or Danks, but the Sox would want another prospect in the deal.

http://rotoworld.com/content/HeadLines.aspx?sport=MLB&hl=216833



http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=90427

Apparently you didnt check "Whats The Score"

chisoxfan4life
07-17-2007, 07:36 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=90427

Apparently you didnt check "Whats The Score"
Oops. I figured somebody had to have been all over this already. My bad.

thomas35forever
07-17-2007, 07:37 PM
:searchfirst:

UserNameBlank
07-17-2007, 07:43 PM
I didn't see this posted anywhere else, sorry if this rumor has already been discussed.

According to Rotoworld, Conor Jackson is demanding a trade out of Arizona and the D-Backs are shopping him to the Sox. They apparently want Garland or Danks, but the Sox would want another prospect in the deal.

http://rotoworld.com/content/HeadLines.aspx?sport=MLB&hl=216833
Dude, reading is a skill. The article says Vazquez demanded a trade and was shipped to the Sox. The Sox are just scouting Jackson.

thomas35forever
07-17-2007, 07:43 PM
With all this talk of dealing one of our starters (Garland, Contreras), who fills the gap?

UserNameBlank
07-17-2007, 07:47 PM
With all this talk of dealing one of our starters (Garland, Contreras), who fills the gap?
Floyd, Masset, Broadway, Gio, Egbert... one of those, unless we get another pitcher in a deal. Then he'd be added to the list, too.

I think there is some substance to these rumors though. KW has dealt with AZ 3 times in the last 2 seasons, so it wouldn't surprise me to see another deal made. Apparently through all the dealings the Sox know the DBacks system well and they know our system well.

TheCommander
07-17-2007, 07:50 PM
Dude, reading is a skill. The article says Vazquez demanded a trade and was shipped to the Sox. The Sox are just scouting Jackson.

More food for thought:most of that brief article is Phil Rogers speculating-consider the source.:rolleyes:

UserNameBlank
07-17-2007, 07:51 PM
More food for thought:most of that brief article is Phil Rogers speculating-consider the source.:rolleyes:
I believe him. Kenny loves to deal with AZ.

Tragg
07-17-2007, 08:06 PM
I believe him. Kenny loves to deal with AZ.
I'm sure he's talking to them. WE get Jackson (who is not a top prospect) plus 2 top prospects for Garland.

California Sox
07-17-2007, 08:08 PM
I think there is some substance to these rumors though. KW has dealt with AZ 3 times in the last 2 seasons, so it wouldn't surprise me to see another deal made. Apparently through all the dealings the Sox know the DBacks system well and they know our system well.

They ought to know each other's systems well. They train in the same complex. I'm sure we've seen their guys on back fields and vice versa.

Brian26
07-17-2007, 08:27 PM
If this is true that means Thome or Konerko is gone. And by that I mean, Thome is gone.


Edit: which is why I don't think its true.

I'm thinking this could be a blockbuster.

I'm not sure if Orlando Hudson is untouchable or not, but I'd love to see him in a Sox uniform.

Can Thome still play first with an NL team though?

ilsox7
07-17-2007, 08:30 PM
I'm thinking this could be a blockbuster.

I'm not sure if Orlando Hudson is untouchable or not, but I'd love to see him in a Sox uniform.

Can Thome still play first with an NL team though?

Why would Thome waive his NTC?

Brian26
07-17-2007, 08:34 PM
Why would Thome waive his NTC?

Yikes, I forgot he had one too.

KRS1
07-17-2007, 08:35 PM
Why would Thome waive his NTC?

To play for a contender?

Brian26
07-17-2007, 08:35 PM
Why would Thome waive his NTC?

So we have Contreras, Vazquez and Thome all with some kind of no-trade clause.

KRS1
07-17-2007, 08:36 PM
So we have Contreras, Vazquez and Thome all with some kind of no-trade clause.

I thought I read Jose's NTC expired after last season?

DeadMoney
07-17-2007, 08:42 PM
I thought I read Jose's NTC expired after last season?

It did:

Link (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html)
Jose Contreras p
3 years/$29M (2007-09)

signed extension 4/06
07:$9M, 08:$10M, 09:$10M
deal does not include no-trade clause

4 years/$32M (2003-06)

$6M signing bonus
$2M paid in 2003, $2M in 04, $1M in 05, $1M in 06
03:$4M, 04:$7M, 05:$7M, 06:$8M
no-trade clause

signed as a free agent from Cuba 12/02
agent: Jaime Torres
ML service: 3.152

cws05champ
07-17-2007, 09:16 PM
More food for thought:most of that brief article is Phil Rogers speculating-consider the source.:rolleyes:

Exactly...it's the mysterious "MLB Sources" again. Boy they get around. The thing that says it most is one of the blog comments below the blog:

what major league sources? I live in AZ and there was an article in the paper out here over a week ago that Jackson offered to play outfield if it meant more playing time for him.

Craig Grebeck
07-17-2007, 09:52 PM
Jackson for Contreras straight up is a steal. Jackson/Nippert/Bonaficio for Garland is fair, IMO.

rdivaldi
07-18-2007, 12:08 PM
Yahoo continues to fan the rumor flames...

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Jackson-could-end-up-in-Chicago?urn=mlb,39594

soltrain21
07-18-2007, 12:41 PM
Why in the hell would we trade John Danks?

wassagstdu
07-18-2007, 12:42 PM
Another 1B/DH for the Sox. That's four (behind Thome, Konerko, Dye). Only four more and we would have our dream team!

sox1970
07-18-2007, 12:45 PM
Why in the hell would we trade John Danks?

They shouldn't, but the only reason would be if they don't want to have three lefties, and they like Gio Gonzalez more to be the second lefty, with Buehrle. But personally, three lefties in the rotation is fine with me if they can pitch. I really don't think Danks is going anywhere. That would surprise me more than the McCarthy trade.

SoxxoS
07-18-2007, 12:46 PM
They shouldn't, but the only reason would be if they don't want to have three lefties, and they like Gio Gonzalez more to be the second lefty, with Buehrle. But personally, three lefties in the rotation is fine with me if they can pitch. I really don't think Danks is going anywhere. That would surprise me more than the McCarthy trade.

Problems like 3 lefties in the rotation tend to work themselves out.

I like Danks a lot, but he is far from untouchable - its all about the return players baby.

oeo
07-18-2007, 12:46 PM
Why in the hell would we trade John Danks?

Kenny wouldn't do that. Garland I can see, though, but we better get a lot more than Conor Jackson.

Problems like 3 lefties in the rotation tend to work themselves out.

I like Danks a lot, but he is far from untouchable - its all about the return players baby.

22-year-old with great mound presence and potential...not to mention he's cheap. He's untouchable.

soxfan13
07-18-2007, 12:50 PM
Another 1B/DH for the Sox. That's four (behind Thome, Konerko, Dye). Only four more and we would have our dream team!

Actually Jackson is an outfielder too.

dakuda
07-18-2007, 12:54 PM
AZ Republic kinda kills the Jackson rumor:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/0717dbnotes0718.html

Executives from the Diamondbacks and White Sox got a laugh out of a published report Tuesday that said Conor Jackson played left field on Monday night in order to showcase him in a potential trade. A White Sox official sent a sarcastic e-mail to a Diamondbacks official that said, "Let us know next time you're showcasing someone for us."

oeo
07-18-2007, 12:56 PM
AZ Republic kinda kills the Jackson rumor:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/0717dbnotes0718.html

What?! Phil Rogers is wrong? There's something new...

SoxxoS
07-18-2007, 02:10 PM
Kenny wouldn't do that. Garland I can see, though, but we better get a lot more than Conor Jackson.



22-year-old with great mound presence and potential...not to mention he's cheap. He's untouchable.

Let's get realisitic. I like Danks, but he is definitely not untouchable. What happens if Seattle offered Felix Rodriguez for him? Or Boston offered Bucholz and Ellsbury? Come on.

rdivaldi
07-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Let's get realisitic. I like Danks, but he is definitely not untouchable. What happens if Seattle offered Felix Rodriguez for him? Or Boston offered Bucholz and Ellsbury? Come on.

Oh come on now, let's not get ridiculous. Untouchable within reason how about?

SoxxoS
07-18-2007, 02:32 PM
Oh come on now, let's not get ridiculous. Untouchable within reason how about?

Untouchable within reason is an oxymoron, isn't it?

rdivaldi
07-18-2007, 02:34 PM
Untouchable within reason is an oxymoron, isn't it?

Hmmmmmm. Perhaps it could be worded better. Semi-touchable?

Tragg
07-18-2007, 03:36 PM
Actually Jackson is an outfielder too.

I thought that was the reason that Rogers thought they were showcasing him for us - he was playing OF just for us, knowing that w need OF but not 1B.

How about trading Floyd for him. PItcing prospect for a hitting prospect.