PDA

View Full Version : Contreras clears waivers


delben91
08-13-2007, 12:15 PM
Who knows what this (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/13/contreras.waivers/index.html) means...

soxfan13
08-13-2007, 12:18 PM
Who knows what this (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/13/contreras.waivers/index.html) means...

Means he can be traded it also means nobody is probably interested in him:tongue:

spiffie
08-13-2007, 12:20 PM
Also means if someone wanted to take on the salary, and the Sox decided it was worth saving the cash, they could just take him and the Sox could let him go.

delben91
08-13-2007, 12:21 PM
Means he can be traded it also means nobody is probably interested in him:tongue:

Well, yeah, I realize it means he can be traded. :tongue:

Just saying (and concurring with your point), that I hadn't heard any rumors about him having any interested suitors, so I was wondering if maybe something changed that prompted the Sox to put him through waivers.

spiffie
08-13-2007, 12:23 PM
Well, yeah, I realize it means he can be traded. :tongue:

Just saying (and concurring with your point), that I hadn't heard any rumors about him having any interested suitors, so I was wondering if maybe something changed that prompted the Sox to put him through waivers.
Most teams will put almost every single player on the waiver wire during August. Just rare for a player as high-profile as Jose to clear waivers without someone claiming him.

balke
08-13-2007, 12:23 PM
He's looked good in relief so far. 7IP, 1BB, 6 K's, 0 ER, 1R


I think the Mets might wanna make a move on this, as Pedro might not be recovered as much as they would've hoped, and if he is they can put Contreras in the bullpen. I'm thinking Contreras is headed back into our rotation soon. Gavin has only looked that good once this season, and he looked horrible in his last start.

Put Contreras with El Duque and give him a season worth focusing on, and I think he could be successful for NY.

eriqjaffe
08-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Well, yeah, I realize it means he can be traded. :tongue:

Just saying (and concurring with your point), that I hadn't heard any rumors about him having any interested suitors, so I was wondering if maybe something changed that prompted the Sox to put him through waivers.Maybe they were hoping somebody would claim him by mistake.

Fenway
08-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Also means if someone wanted to take on the salary, and the Sox decided it was worth saving the cash, they could just take him and the Sox could let him go.

not likely

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/otherMLB/view.bg?articleid=1016719

As bad as Jose Contreras has been for the White Sox, hereís what makes it worse: Contreras is signed for each of the next two seasons at $10 million per. Even with the cost for pitching having gone the way of gas prices, Contreras is baseballís equivalent of a gas-guzzling Chevy Tahoe.
Wow.
What a waste.

spiffie
08-13-2007, 12:50 PM
Also means if someone wanted to take on the salary, and the Sox decided it was worth saving the cash, they could just take him and the Sox could let him go.

not likely

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/otherMLB/view.bg?articleid=1016719

Trust me, there was a lot of implied deeppink in that statement. I'd love someone to claim him, and see the Sox pull a Randy Myers with him.

upperdeckusc
08-13-2007, 12:55 PM
please, just pay about $4 mil of next yrs contract and get rid of him. :praying:

Huisj
08-13-2007, 01:00 PM
Trust me, there was a lot of implied deeppink in that statement. I'd love someone to claim him, and see the Sox pull a Randy Myers with him.

Unfortunately, this means no one did claim him, so that's can't really happen. Didn't Myers get claimed by San Diego with them thinking that he'd get pulled back off waivers, but then Toronto said ok you can have him and didn't pull him back?

soxfan43
08-13-2007, 01:01 PM
Maybe some of the money they saved by letting gooch and mack go will help pay some of Jose's salary next year, so Kenny can trade him. What kind of realistic return do you guys think we'd be able to get for Jose, provided the Sox pay some portion of his salary?

upperdeckusc
08-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Maybe some of the money they saved by letting gooch and mack go will help pay some of Jose's salary next year, so Kenny can trade him. What kind of realistic return do you guys think we'd be able to get for Jose, provided the Sox pay some portion of his salary?

hats.........for bats

jdm2662
08-13-2007, 01:15 PM
Unfortunately, this means no one did claim him, so that's can't really happen. Didn't Myers get claimed by San Diego with them thinking that he'd get pulled back off waivers, but then Toronto said ok you can have him and didn't pull him back?

Yes, which is why no one claimed Contreras.If someone claimed him, Kenny could've said, here you go. That team would've then been on the books for the remaining of Contreras's contract.

Another example was Jose Canseco in 2000. The Yankees claimed him to prevent him from going to another team. Tampa said, ok thanks. Have a nice day. opps. The Yankees were then stuck with him, and he pretty much had no place on the team.

munchman33
08-13-2007, 01:18 PM
please, just pay about $4 mil of next yrs contract and get rid of him. :praying:

Sox would likely have to pay a lot more than that, and for both years.

MDF3530
08-13-2007, 01:31 PM
Soon to be DFA'd?

The Immigrant
08-13-2007, 01:35 PM
One interesting rumor is a Furcal for Contreras swap. Both are overpaid and underperforming, and the Dodgers have Hu waiting to take over at SS.

oeo
08-13-2007, 01:38 PM
not likely

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/otherMLB/view.bg?articleid=1016719

Although, in 7 IP out of the bullpen, he's given up 7 hits, 1 BB, 6 Ks, 0 ER.

oeo
08-13-2007, 01:40 PM
Soon to be DFA'd?

I highly doubt that. 1)He's owed too much money and 2)Like I just said, he's improved out of the bullpen. Whether that translates to his next start, we'll see. Maybe he just needed a kick in the butt...who knows? Because his stuff is still there, he's shown it.

cws05champ
08-13-2007, 01:50 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that Contreras could turn it around? I know he has been absolutely awful this year, but if anything he has proven to be a good pitcher when his head is on straight.

He's with NY, puts a lot of pressure on himself because of the contract, family still in Cuba = inconsistent, with good stuff.

He's traded to the Sox, not a lot of pressure, family still in Cuba = inconsistent, with good stuff.

He is reunited with his family= He takes off and becomes a dominant pitcher for a year straight.

Family issues come up again, divorce = inconsistent, bad mechanics, lower veloicity

He is moved to the bullpen to get a wake up= wakes up, starts throwing 94mph again.

I know Jose is getting up there in age but it looks like this guy just needs to get his head straight and a kick in the ass when he is not all there.

Foulke You
08-13-2007, 02:27 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that Contreras could turn it around? I know he has been absolutely awful this year, but if anything he has proven to be a good pitcher when his head is on straight.

He's with NY, puts a lot of pressure on himself because of the contract, family still in Cuba = inconsistent, with good stuff.

He's traded to the Sox, not a lot of pressure, family still in Cuba = inconsistent, with good stuff.

He is reunited with his family= He takes off and becomes a dominant pitcher for a year straight.

Family issues come up again, divorce = inconsistent, bad mechanics, lower veloicity

He is moved to the bullpen to get a wake up= wakes up, starts throwing 94mph again.

I know Jose is getting up there in age but it looks like this guy just needs to get his head straight and a kick in the ass when he is not all there.
No you aren't the only one. Jose's last couple outings reminded me just how good a pitcher Jose can be when he is throwing over the top primarily and has a bit of pop on his fastball.

I could see Jose going either way. Right now the arrow is pointing down on him. He is getting older (nobody knows how old), runners steal on him at will, he threw side arm most of the year, he had a lot of off the field personal problems, and his fork ball and splitter had no bite on it anymore. However, when Jose is right, he has some of the nastiest stuff in the AL.

At 9 million per year, I think the best thing the Sox can do is put him back in the rotation and try to regain his form. You can't trade him right now so we need to do whatever we can to make him right. If he continues to show progress, his stock rises for an offseason trade or you place him back in the rotation to help you in 2008.

Sargeant79
08-13-2007, 03:13 PM
One interesting rumor is a Furcal for Contreras swap. Both are overpaid and underperforming, and the Dodgers have Hu waiting to take over at SS.

Hadn't heard that. Source?

That would be interesting. IIRC, Furcal is only on the books for next year, albeit at $13 million. But I'd gladly take him at short instead of Uribe.

Fenway
08-13-2007, 03:33 PM
Mad Dog on WFAN wants Contreras back in da Bronx

:praying:

A. Cavatica
08-13-2007, 08:00 PM
Mad Dog on WFAN wants Contreras back in da Bronx

:praying:

So do most Red Sox fans.

southside rocks
08-13-2007, 08:06 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that Contreras could turn it around? I know he has been absolutely awful this year, but if anything he has proven to be a good pitcher when his head is on straight.



I agree with you, and more to the point, so does Ozzie Guillen. From this quote of Ozzie's, I would doubt very strongly that the Sox are going to DFA Jose Contreras:

''He did a lot of great things for this organization in the past. You don't throw him in the garbage can because of one bad year.''

In this Sun-Times piece:
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/507873,CST-SPT-ssep13.article

soltrain21
08-13-2007, 08:08 PM
I agree with you, and more to the point, so does Ozzie Guillen. From this quote of Ozzie's, I would doubt very strongly that the Sox are going to DFA Jose Contreras:

''He did a lot of great things for this organization in the past. You don't throw him in the garbage can because of one bad year.''

In this Sun-Times piece:
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/507873,CST-SPT-ssep13.article


Its ****ing amazing how patient he is with veterans, and how awfully impatient he is with younger guys.

JB98
08-13-2007, 08:19 PM
Its ****ing amazing how patient he is with veterans, and how awfully impatient he is with younger guys.

People just say he is impatient with younger guys because of the perception that he mishandled Brian Anderson.

munchman33
08-13-2007, 08:21 PM
He is moved to the bullpen to get a wake up= wakes up, starts throwing 94mph again.



I'd be willing to bet he's throwing 94 BECAUSE he's in the pen. Because he knows he isn't out there for 100 pitches, and he's letting loose more than normal. Because he isn't out there long enough to get his arm tired.

I keep saying Contreras stuff-wise is way better as a bullpen option than a rotation option...

Tragg
08-13-2007, 10:49 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that Contreras could turn it around? I know he has been absolutely awful this year, but if anything he has proven to be a good pitcher when his head is on straight.


He could and I hope he does, but I'd still trade him.
Sox need the salary relief, have several positional holes, and could use a couple of really top shelf hitters.

oeo
08-13-2007, 11:10 PM
I'd be willing to bet he's throwing 94 BECAUSE he's in the pen. Because he knows he isn't out there for 100 pitches, and he's letting loose more than normal. Because he isn't out there long enough to get his arm tired.

I keep saying Contreras stuff-wise is way better as a bullpen option than a rotation option...

I don't know...we'll see in his next start. He has gone back over-the-top in his delivery, so that could be the reason he's hitting mid-90s now. Again, the jury is still out because we have to see if his success in the pen will translate back to the rotation, but right now he does look rejuvenated.

If we're ever going to get rid of his contract, he's going to need to start some games the rest of the year. I say put Danks on the DL for some rest, and give Contreras a couple of starts, along with Floyd. Then find out where to go from there.

Grzegorz
08-14-2007, 04:50 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that Contreras could turn it around? I know he has been absolutely awful this year, but if anything he has proven to be a good pitcher when his head is on straight.


I think he can turn it around and the moment he does so he should be traded.

Tragg
08-14-2007, 08:19 AM
Its ****ing amazing how patient he is with veterans, and how awfully impatient he is with younger guys.
He's groused about Anderson, Fields (still is), Sweeney, Danks, Floyd. Tracey was canned for not doing Vasquez' retaliation.
Plenty of vets who didn't help in 2005 have had dreadful years, and not a word.

He hasn't ragged Owens, whose struggled mightily as a leadoff hitter. Perhaps it's because he has a soft spot for fellow slappers.

AZChiSoxFan
08-14-2007, 10:50 AM
What kind of realistic return do you guys think we'd be able to get for Jose, provided the Sox pay some portion of his salary?

If the Sox could get the proverbial bag 'o balls for Jose, it would go down as one of the best trades in Sox history.

soxinem1
08-14-2007, 10:57 AM
Means he can be traded it also means nobody is probably interested in him:tongue:


http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/MCVSandersSuit.jpg

'Now there's a big ****ing suprise!!'

TomBradley72
08-14-2007, 11:05 AM
He's groused about Anderson, Fields (still is), Sweeney, Danks, Floyd. Tracey was canned for not doing Vasquez' retaliation.
Plenty of vets who didn't help in 2005 have had dreadful years, and not a word.

He hasn't ragged Owens, whose struggled mightily as a leadoff hitter. Perhaps it's because he has a soft spot for fellow slappers.

Anderson deserved grousing...his .230's average at AAA backs Ozzie's opinion up. Fields has had plenty of playing time and is producing nicely. He's been raving about Danks most of the year (despite a 6-10, 5.00+ ERA), Floyd has been mediocre and is not a "young prospect", Tracey sucked. He's tough on rookie's....but not unreasonably tough.

EastCoastSoxFan
08-14-2007, 01:15 PM
Another example was Jose Canseco in 2000. The Yankees claimed him to prevent him from going to another team. Tampa said, ok thanks. Have a nice day. opps. The Yankees were then stuck with him, and he pretty much had no place on the team.The funniest part of that was Joe Torre finding out about it during a post-game interview in the locker room.
Some reporter asked him how it felt to have Jose Canseco on the team, and Joe Torre, upon verifying with said reporter that Jose Canseco was, indeed, on the Yankees, just sort of shrugged and said something to the effect of, "Well, I guess we'll find a place for him somewhere."

oeo
08-14-2007, 01:20 PM
He's groused about Anderson, Fields (still is), Sweeney, Danks, Floyd. Tracey was canned for not doing Vasquez' retaliation.

Mmm...okay. Fields, he said he needed results from him, and guess what? He rose to the occasion. Ozzie has had only good things to say about Sweeney, and when has he said anything bad about Danks?

He hasn't ragged Owens, whose struggled mightily as a leadoff hitter. Perhaps it's because he has a soft spot for fellow slappers.

You're wrong about this too. He said when Owens got called up the second time that he needed to show some signs of life. Sort of like Fields, and guess what? Owens has (mostly) risen to the occasion.

southside rocks
08-14-2007, 02:03 PM
He's groused about Anderson, Fields (still is), Sweeney, Danks, Floyd. Tracey was canned for not doing Vasquez' retaliation.
Plenty of vets who didn't help in 2005 have had dreadful years, and not a word.

He hasn't ragged Owens, whose struggled mightily as a leadoff hitter. Perhaps it's because he has a soft spot for fellow slappers.

If one goes only by what one reads in the sports pages, that could be the conclusion. There's no context to most of what Ozzie is quoted as saying, and so when he says that if Fields struggles at the plate, he'll platoon him, he immediately gets roasted as saying that he's going to bench Fields. What he said in that interview was that he didn't want Fields, who was forced into his rookie year by Crede's absence, to be overwhelmed and if he seemed to be getting that way, Ozzie would spell him with other players.

Sean Tracey wasn't canned for not hitting a player, but his performance after that game didn't impress Ozzie, Kenny, or Coop. Again, though, if you just read the crap that the sportswriters put out, Ozzie "ruined" the kid by yelling at him.

It's probably about 2% of what actually happens on a team that ever sees the light of day in the media. A baseball team spends 8-12 hours per day together almost every day for more than 6 months. There are relationships and events about which we know nothing, and less than nothing. To judge one person by what is carried in the papers will lead to some pretty unfounded conclusions.

Ozzie has praised Danks to the skies in radio interviews. And if he's groused about Floyd, well, who hasn't!

As for the veterans: if you pile up a string of wins, and you take the ball every time it's handed to you, and you win some playoff games and a World Series game, and you have always been a team player -- then yeah, you get some slack when you need it. And no, a rookie doesn't get that. It is what it is, and it's that way on every team in the major leagues.

munchman33
08-14-2007, 02:28 PM
I don't know...we'll see in his next start. He has gone back over-the-top in his delivery, so that could be the reason he's hitting mid-90s now. Again, the jury is still out because we have to see if his success in the pen will translate back to the rotation, but right now he does look rejuvenated.


Once again....better from the pen. He can get away with being over the top there. But over the course of a few innings, that becomes very deliberate and easier to read.

Jose has only ever been successful as a starter changing angles. He rarely threw over the top until deep into counts, which was when his forkball was effective, so he could get away with it easier. As a reliever, he can go over the top all the time because he can throw harder, making his fastball more effective than it normally would be at that angle.

EMel9281
08-14-2007, 07:53 PM
hats.........for bats

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

Because he's Cuban, it's even funnier. We probably couldn't get anything for him until the offseason to see how the market goes. Even then, ST might be the best time to see what he can and how he rebounds from this terrible year.

cws05champ
08-15-2007, 08:30 AM
Once again....better from the pen. He can get away with being over the top there. But over the course of a few innings, that becomes very deliberate and easier to read.

Jose has only ever been successful as a starter changing angles. He rarely threw over the top until deep into counts, which was when his forkball was effective, so he could get away with it easier. As a reliever, he can go over the top all the time because he can throw harder, making his fastball more effective than it normally would be at that angle.

The problem is, we don't really know if his problem is mental or physical. Contreras used to throw over the top a lot more...if you look at his games this year, he was throwing at that drop down arm angle almost exclusively. This makes the velocity decrease and a scout I talked to(who was scouting Contreras at the time-Mets) said they were conserned that it was because his shoulder is injured.

munchman33
08-15-2007, 09:27 AM
The problem is, we don't really know if his problem is mental or physical. Contreras used to throw over the top a lot more...if you look at his games this year, he was throwing at that drop down arm angle almost exclusively. This makes the velocity decrease and a scout I talked to(who was scouting Contreras at the time-Mets) said they were conserned that it was because his shoulder is injured.

Coop said on Mike North about a week ago his problem was because, in the process of switching between his two effective angles, he would end up a lot of times in between the two somewhere, and that's why he was getting hit. I'd have to say that that's what looked like was happening, instead of his effective side angle early in counts and the over the top angle in forkball counts, he'd be in between the majority of the time, or close to one or the other, but far enough away that he was losing velocity and control of his pitches. Since he's been a reliever, he's thrown only over the top. And he's had good results. But if he's gonna start, he'll need to go back to switching to be effective. And I don't think he's able to do that anymore. It's amazing that he was for so very long.

Sargeant79
08-15-2007, 01:20 PM
Didn't see this posted anywhere yet...

From today's Sun-Times:

Contreras, who is owed $20million through the 2009 season, has passed through waivers and could be dealt this month. Several contenders, including the Dodgers, are expected to scout Contreras on Friday. He remains a trade target because of his 4-1 record and 3.77 ERA in 12 postseason outings.

Link (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/510246,CST-SPT-soxnt15.article)

I would be all for sending him to LA. He would probably do well in the national league and the Dodgers would probably be one of the few teams out there willing and/or able to pick up most of his contract.

My two cents: With the money saved, offer Garland a reasonable 3-year extension. If he takes it, great. If not, have him start the year on the south side. If we're in the race, keep him, let him walk at the end of the season, and take the draft picks. If not, move him at the deadline.

soxfan43
08-15-2007, 01:39 PM
It all depends on the return. The sox desperately need help in multiple areas. I don't think Jose will bring much of a return at this point. Whereas, you might be able to land yourself a nice young SS or OFer if you dangle Garland. Either way, it's going to be an interesting offseason.

russ99
08-15-2007, 03:08 PM
That no club claimed Contreras on waivers means only one thing: With a claim on him the Sox could have allowed Jose to leave on that waiver claim, and his new club would be responsible for his contract.

No one's gonna do that and risk being on the hook for 20M for 2 years.

I also think the Dodgers won't offer us anything decent for Jose, and Kenny would be wise to hold onto him until the offseason after the first round of FA signings, when the pitching market tends to go a bit crazy. By then $10M per season could be a bargain.

Sargeant79
08-15-2007, 04:09 PM
It all depends on the return. The sox desperately need help in multiple areas. I don't think Jose will bring much of a return at this point. Whereas, you might be able to land yourself a nice young SS or OFer if you dangle Garland. Either way, it's going to be an interesting offseason.

The return you would get for getting rid of Jose at this point would be the players that you could get with the $20 million freed up.

upperdeckusc
08-15-2007, 04:12 PM
It all depends on the return. The sox desperately need help in multiple areas. I don't think Jose will bring much of a return at this point. Whereas, you might be able to land yourself a nice young SS or OFer if you dangle Garland. Either way, it's going to be an interesting offseason.

or trade him now and use that 10-15 mil (assuming we give them 5 mil, making him a 7.5 mil/yr pitcher...not too bad) to improve at SS or OF. that seems to be the more logical way than trading garland and still having contreras and his salary on the team.

KyWhiSoxFan
08-15-2007, 08:08 PM
I think the Sox had to find a way to dump Jose's salary to free up the money to get some free agents or trade for some high-priced established veterans. I suppose he could turn it around, but it is a pretty big gamble in my mind to keep him.

Gammons Peter
08-16-2007, 08:11 AM
what is he owed in salary? It's always locally reported at 20 but the good folks at espn always say 23

eriqjaffe
08-16-2007, 08:41 AM
what is he owed in salary? It's always locally reported at 20 but the good folks at espn always say 23ESPN may be figuring that he's still owed a portion of this year's salary - which would be somwhere in the neighborhood of $3 million, since the season's about 2/3 over. He's owed $10 million in both 2008 and 2009.

PorkChopExpress
08-16-2007, 11:42 AM
One interesting rumor is a Furcal for Contreras swap. Both are overpaid and underperforming, and the Dodgers have Hu waiting to take over at SS.

I'm torn on this one. If we get rid of Jose, I was hoping it was to free up salary. A swap for Furcal actually would add salary, but we get a decent switch-hitting SS with a little speed (assuming his decline as of late is only temporary, a big assumption) who hits lefties well (.353 on the year) and can lead-off. He would have to make it through waivers, but with that salary, hopefully he could. It's a big risk taking on that contract, but it could pay off big, too. I guess I would be for it.

Edit: And per mlbtraderumors.com, citing to DeLuca of the Sun-Times, the Dodgers will be scouting Jose tomorrow.

Steelrod
08-16-2007, 11:53 AM
Jose may turn out to be the difference maker to one of the many teams in or near first place.
We've all seen what he can do when the chips are on the line.