PDA

View Full Version : Last Start for Contreras?


getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 11:24 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/510246,CST-SPT-soxnt15.article
If he shows something we might finally be able to rid ourselves of this guy.

IlliniSox
08-17-2007, 11:45 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/510246,CST-SPT-soxnt15.article
If he shows something we might finally be able to rid ourselves of this guy.

Show some respect for 'that guy'.

HartmanSox
08-17-2007, 11:45 AM
I'm not holding my breath.

chisoxmike
08-17-2007, 11:46 AM
Show some respect for 'that guy'.

Why? He sucks and overpaid.

The Immigrant
08-17-2007, 11:49 AM
Why? He sucks and overpaid.

Without him the White Sox would not have won the World Series in 2005, that's why. For that he will always have my respect.

chisoxmike
08-17-2007, 11:52 AM
Without him the White Sox would not have won the World Series in 2005, that's why. For that he will always have my respect.


That doesn't give him a pass for being 9-22 since the '06 All-Star break. Yeah, he'll have a special place in the hearts of Sox fans, but he had one great half in a special season. Let's cut the cord and move on.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2007, 11:53 AM
Without him the White Sox would not have won the World Series in 2005, that's why. For that he will always have my respect.

Of course I'll always respect him for his performance between the 2005 and 2006 All Star breaks, including the 2005 postseason.

But I would be quite pleased if the Sox could deal Contreras without having to pay any of his salary, because it would free up $10 million to shore up other holes without having to trade Garland. (KW still might deal Garland, but he wouldn't have to do so, and he might even have the money needed to extend Garland's contract.)

Tragg
08-17-2007, 12:30 PM
But I would be quite pleased if the Sox could deal Contreras without having to pay any of his salary
That would be a miracle, unless he does it by swapping Jose for someone else's problem.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 12:32 PM
What has Jose done lately?

jabrch
08-17-2007, 12:46 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather trade Garland for a package of top tier prospects (Maybe to the Dodgers for Hu, a P and an OF) than to just give away Contreras, possibly eat part of his salary, and get nothing in return.

munchman33
08-17-2007, 01:06 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather trade Garland for a package of top tier prospects (Maybe to the Dodgers for Hu, a P and an OF) than to just give away Contreras, possibly eat part of his salary, and get nothing in return.

You make assumptions about the market that simply aren't true. Top tier prospects don't get traded any more. And if they do, they don't get traded for Jon Garland.

KyWhiSoxFan
08-17-2007, 01:08 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather trade Garland for a package of top tier prospects (Maybe to the Dodgers for Hu, a P and an OF) than to just give away Contreras, possibly eat part of his salary, and get nothing in return.

I think Garland is gone this off season. From all reports, KW has tried so many trades with him that at some point he's going to pull the trigger.

With Contreras, it is a question of whether he has anything left to be effective, even as a fifth starter. If the Sox can't get someone to take his salary in full, I'm afraid KW will have to roll the dice and hope Contreras can get the job done as part of the staff in 2008. (And then trade him if he can establish some value.)

Cuck_The_Fubs
08-17-2007, 02:00 PM
You cant blame Contreras for his continuous struggles. When they signed Contreras for 3 years @ 10m-ish annually, they were in for it. The guy was old, and we cant blame someone because of their age. If it's anyone to be ticked at, point the finger on the one who signed Jose.

Jose still has my respect.

downstairs
08-17-2007, 02:26 PM
Pretend you're a GM of a contending team. Tell me what great prospects you'd give up for a pitcher who's 9-22.

Assuming you want to keep your job, that is.

HartmanSox
08-17-2007, 02:37 PM
The guy has been in an absolute freefall since '05. It's hard to imagine that he started this year as our ace. Even if he wins the rest of his games this year, nobody is going to want him.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Pretend you're a GM of a contending team. Tell me what great prospects you'd give up for a pitcher who's 9-22.

Assuming you want to keep your job, that is.
The thing I see mentioned is Contreras for Furcal. Now that essentially become Furcal and either Gio or Floyd for Uribe and Contreras.

jabrch
08-17-2007, 02:59 PM
You make assumptions about the market that simply aren't true. Top tier prospects don't get traded any more. And if they do, they don't get traded for Jon Garland.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players/20070502/6168.jpg

Huh?


You are completely wrong.

upperdeckusc
08-17-2007, 03:05 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather trade Garland for a package of top tier prospects (Maybe to the Dodgers for Hu, a P and an OF) than to just give away Contreras, possibly eat part of his salary, and get nothing in return.

or you can trade him for nothing, and take that 10 mil we saved to get a SS or OF or help contribute to get players at both positions. that way we addressed our holes, and garland is still on the team.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 03:10 PM
At this point I would tell all 29 teams all we want is your fastest player under 23.

35th&Shields
08-17-2007, 03:15 PM
Without him the White Sox would not have won the World Series in 2005, that's why. For that he will always have my respect.

I second that sentiment. Also, I've never heard of any complaints about his attitude or willingness to play. It's not his fault that he lost some speed on his pitches. The guy is in his mid-40's by many accounts. It's going to happen sometime.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 03:22 PM
I second that sentiment. Also, I've never heard of any complaints about his attitude or willingness to play. It's not his fault that he lost some speed on his pitches. The guy is in his mid-40's by many accounts. It's going to happen sometime.
Honestly thank you for the championship however what have you done lately. I want to win, I dont want to hang onto players just because they helped us win a title. That is bad business and team developement.

Domeshot17
08-17-2007, 03:39 PM
Honestly thank you for the championship however what have you done lately. I want to win, I dont want to hang onto players just because they helped us win a title. That is bad business and team developement.


BUT HEY THOSE GUYS WON US A WORLD SERIES!!!!!! Why would we want Thome-Vazquez-Fields when we could have Timo-Willie-Crazy Carl-Politte-Widger!!! SHOW RESPECT MAN!

Honestly, I feel the same as BckThr. Thanks for the world series, see you later, take Uribe with you. Baseball is a what have you done for us lately sport, and lately, Contreras has done NOTHING to help this team win. Add that to the fact he is a very emotional player who is unable to check his baggage at the door, and his age has a give or take of about 10 years, and it all just points to the fact we need to dump him. If we could get Furcal for him it would be a steal. I would trade him for a B spec at this point in time.

And about his baggage, not that I cant sympathize with a Divorce, its a bad thing, but a lot of ball players go through this and don't let it kill their play. The same can be said of a lot of professions.

Tragg
08-17-2007, 04:11 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather trade Garland for a package of top tier prospects (Maybe to the Dodgers for Hu, a P and an OF)
We always hear that until it's time to execute - and it never turns into top tier prospects.

Texiera brought top tier prospects. But I can't ever remember the Sox netting top tier prospects in a trade. Maybe Gio, but he really wasn't "top tier". We need ML ready position prospects.

As for dumping Contreras, it's certainly no worse than the Lee deal, where we gave away a productive player for 1/2 value (at best) in players, to clear salary. Here we would give a non-productive player (if not counterproductive player) and get nothing, to clear more salary than we cleared with Lee.

The thing I see mentioned is Contreras for Furcal. Now that essentially become Furcal and either Gio or Floyd for Uribe and Contreras.

Omit Gio/Floyd and we may get somewhere. Furcal's a pretty good hitter for a SS, but not at any other position...i.e. he isn't that good of a hitter.
Anyway, did all of these players clear waivers? As best I can tell, the Sox haven't even waived some of the baggage that we probably couldn't give away.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 04:24 PM
We always hear that until it's time to execute - and it never turns into top tier prospects.

Texiera brought top tier prospects. But I can't ever remember the Sox netting top tier prospects in a trade. Maybe Gio, but he really wasn't "top tier". We need ML ready position prospects.

As for dumping Contreras, it's certainly no worse than the Lee deal, where we gave away a productive player for 1/2 value (at best) in players, to clear salary. Here we would give a non-productive player (if not counterproductive player) and get nothing, to clear more salary than we cleared with Lee.



Omit Gio/Floyd and we may get somewhere. Furcal's a pretty good hitter for a SS, but not at any other position...i.e. he isn't that good of a hitter.
Anyway, did all of these players clear waivers? As best I can tell, the Sox haven't even waived some of the baggage that we probably couldn't give away.
Jose has and I assume Furcal and his huge contract has

Tragg
08-17-2007, 04:38 PM
Jose has and I assume Furcal and his huge contract has
I didn't see Furcal on the list that that mlbtraderumors guy maintains. Depending on the length of Furcal's deal, I could see a Contreras+Uribe deal.
But giving away young pitchers for more veterans who really aren't compelling players anyway.... WE can't get a B prospect for Dye, but we need to give our best young pitchers plus some for Furcal. I don't get it.

We need someone who can hit the ball.

EMel9281
08-17-2007, 05:52 PM
I'm all for saying adios to JoCo. It's his time for new environment, and time for a change in our rotation. I really hope he does well tonight and create a win-win for us. Furcal was hurt to begin the year, and it seems like he hasn't returned to form. However, that could change next year. If Jose can take Uribe with him, churros on me!

DickAllen72
08-17-2007, 06:06 PM
Without him the White Sox would not have won the World Series in 2005, that's why. For that he will always have my respect.
Thank you.:thumbsup:

soxfanreggie
08-17-2007, 06:56 PM
I was looking at that sight of guys who cleared waivers. I know some people had mentioned Jack Wilson as a possible SS. Sox could have put a claim on him for waivers, but he cleared them completely (according to the site).

pierzynski07
08-17-2007, 07:10 PM
I second that sentiment. Also, I've never heard of any complaints about his attitude or willingness to play. It's not his fault that he lost some speed on his pitches. The guy is in his mid-40's by many accounts. It's going to happen sometime.
Then why did KW give a 3/30 contract to a mid-40 year old?

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 07:29 PM
I didn't see Furcal on the list that that mlbtraderumors guy maintains. Depending on the length of Furcal's deal, I could see a Contreras+Uribe deal.
But giving away young pitchers for more veterans who really aren't compelling players anyway.... WE can't get a B prospect for Dye, but we need to give our best young pitchers plus some for Furcal. I don't get it.

We need someone who can hit the ball.
No no you misunderstood me. It would be bad contract for bad contract. Contreras for Furcal. With either Gio or Floyd replacing Jose it becomes equilavent to Gio/Floyd and Furcal for Jose and Uribe cause Furcal would replace Uribe.

JB98
08-17-2007, 07:38 PM
Doesn't Furcal have only one year left on his deal? I thought the Dodgers gave him $39 million over three years. This is his second year with LA, right?

Tragg
08-17-2007, 07:43 PM
No no you misunderstood me. It would be bad contract for bad contract. Contreras for Furcal. With either Gio or Floyd replacing Jose it becomes equilavent to Gio/Floyd and Furcal for Jose and Uribe cause Furcal would replace Uribe.
I like that a lot better. Furcal should fit in well with Ozzie's offense.

I was looking at that sight of guys who cleared waivers. I know some people had mentioned Jack Wilson as a possible SS. Sox could have put a claim on him for waivers, but he cleared them completely (according to the site).

I'm pretty sure he has a real obnoxious contract.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 07:44 PM
Doesn't Furcal have only one year left on his deal? I thought the Dodgers gave him $39 million over three years. This is his second year with LA, right?
Yes so it would be essentially an even salary dump helping needs of both teams.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 07:45 PM
I like that a lot better. Furcal should fit in well with Ozzie's offense.



I'm pretty sure he has a real obnoxious contract.
He has 2 years and 14 million left. Bad contract for sure.

Tragg
08-17-2007, 07:49 PM
Yes so it would be essentially an even salary dump helping needs of both teams.
But did Furcal clear?

Pitch a good game tonight Jose, and let's win one.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 07:50 PM
But did Furcal clear?
i haven't seen anything official, but who would claim him and that contract?
Now if someone claimed him then this discussion is meaningless.:D:

JB98
08-17-2007, 07:53 PM
Yes so it would be essentially an even salary dump helping needs of both teams.

OK, that's what I thought. I'm not thrilled with the free-agent possibilities at SS this offseason, and we obviously have nobody in our organization who can replace Uribe.

Furcal might be worth a chance as a one-year stopgap. He's a slight downgrade defensively, but just about anyone is better than Uribe offensively. Juan is among the worst hitting everyday players in MLB.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2007, 07:53 PM
i haven't seen anything official, but who would claim him and that contract?
Now if someone claimed him then this discussion is meaningless.:D:

If Furcal doesn't clear waivers, then for now, make it Contreras for a PTBNL, with Furcal being the agreed-upon PTBNL.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 07:56 PM
OK, that's what I thought. I'm not thrilled with the free-agent possibilities at SS this offseason, and we obviously have nobody in our organization who can replace Uribe.

Furcal might be worth a chance as a one-year stopgap. He's a slight downgrade defensively, but just about anyone is better than Uribe offensively. Juan is among the worst hitting everyday players in MLB.
And then everyone can stop *****ing about Owens as the leadoff hitter.

santo=dorf
08-17-2007, 07:59 PM
What has Jose done lately?
Cleaned up Gavin's messes very nicely.

I rather keep Contreras than trade him (and cash) for nothing.

I don't care how he feels about it either, I'd gladly pay $10 million for a bullpen guy if he gave up great results. Just remember, the Sox nearly traded the immaculate Jeremy Reed for Jose Contreras in June 2004 with the intent of making JC the closer.

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 08:01 PM
Cleaned up Gavin's messes very nicely.

I rather keep Contreras than trade him (and cash) for nothing.

I don't care how he feels about it either, I'd gladly pay $10 million for a bullpen guy if he gave up great results. Just remember, the Sox nearly traded the immaculate Jeremy Reed for Jose Contreras in June 2004 with the intent on making JC the closer.
Closer is one thing bullpen arm in relief for a non-closing situation is absurd at 10 million a year.

santo=dorf
08-17-2007, 08:04 PM
Closer is one thing bullpen arm in relief for a non-closing situation is absurd at 10 million a year.
Like I said, I'd rather spend the $10 million to get great results out of the bullpen instead of not getting good results and paying $7+ million for it as well.

Would JC be worth $10 million if he gave us 100 great innings a year? With the current situation he's in and the ridiculous market, would that really be such a bad thing?

oeo
08-17-2007, 08:04 PM
The thing I see mentioned is Contreras for Furcal. Now that essentially become Furcal and either Gio or Floyd for Uribe and Contreras.

Where did you see this mentioned besides the Cub fan over at MLB Trade Rumors?

getonbckthr
08-17-2007, 08:15 PM
Where did you see this mentioned besides the Cub fan over at MLB Trade Rumors?
It was a combination of them, the sun times article I posted with the Dodgers interested and combining that with our need of a SS/leadoff hitter and the Dodgers not being happy with Furcal or the mistake they signed him to.

MisterB
08-17-2007, 09:42 PM
He has 2 years and 14 million left. Bad contract for sure.

Plus a limited no-trade clause.

kitekrazy
08-17-2007, 09:50 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather trade Garland for a package of top tier prospects (Maybe to the Dodgers for Hu, a P and an OF) than to just give away Contreras, possibly eat part of his salary, and get nothing in return.

There's a reason why they are called prospects. In this market where a .500, 4+ era, are collecting over $10M, you don't trade a back to back 18 game winner for "prospects". That's the fire sale mentality.

kitekrazy
08-17-2007, 09:56 PM
I second that sentiment. Also, I've never heard of any complaints about his attitude or willingness to play. It's not his fault that he lost some speed on his pitches. The guy is in his mid-40's by many accounts. It's going to happen sometime.

It wasn't too long ago he demanded to be traded if he wasn't going to be in the rotation.

FarWestChicago
08-18-2007, 12:06 AM
Just remember, the Sox nearly traded the immaculate Jeremy Reed for Jose Contreras in June 2004 with the intent of making JC the closer.Ummm, you are a stathead. Don't tell me you didn't completely worship at the Church of Jeremy Reed. Every last one of you has to eat that one. He was your God...and he did, and still does, suck.

Nellie_Fox
08-18-2007, 01:47 AM
or you can trade him for nothing, and take that 10 mil we saved to get a SS or OF or help contribute to get players at both positions. that way we addressed our holes, and garland is still on the team.If anyone was willing to take on his $10 mil, they would have claimed him on waivers. Any team that makes any trade for Jose Contreras is going to want the Sox to pay most, not just some, of his salary in the deal.

By the way, you can obviously find your shift key to type SS and OF, why not at the start of sentences and proper nouns?

FarWestChicago
08-18-2007, 08:59 AM
By the way, you can obviously find your shift key to type SS and OF, why not at the start of sentences and proper nouns?He's trying to be 1337. :rolleyes:

santo=dorf
08-18-2007, 09:09 AM
Ummm, you are a stathead. Don't tell me you didn't completely worship at the Church of Jeremy Reed. Every last one of you has to eat that one. He was your God...and he did, and still does, suck.
:rolleyes:

No I wasn't. I was a huge fan of the Garcia trade.

I like looking at OBP and SLG%, but I don't use VORP or WARP3, that doesn't make me a fan of the A's, or a dark cloud either, or an egomaniac. Did I miss any other group you always try attacking?

Can you make one post that is baseball related that doesn't slam someone, make reference to a banned poster, or actually fits the topic? I'd really like to see it.

itsnotrequired
08-18-2007, 09:23 AM
He's trying to be 1337. :rolleyes:

DCC FTW!

FarWestChicago
08-18-2007, 09:24 AM
Can you make one post that is baseball related that doesn't slam someone, make reference to a banned poster, or actually fits the topic? I'd really like to see it.It will be the same day as you can make a post where you don't claim to be a genius or worship Mick Jr. :wink:

Lillian
08-18-2007, 10:34 AM
If there is any validity to this talk of exchanging the contracts of Furcal and Contreras, why wouldn't this be a great move for the Sox?
They would get a 30 year old short stop to replace Uribe, whose contract is expiring. Furcal is only signed through next year, at $13 million, so his age is not really an issue, though it does at least suggest that he should return to his career stats, which are very good.

Contreras is owed $10 million in 08 and 09. If the Dodgers would take him, the Sox would only pay $3 million more next year (the difference between Furcal's $13 million and Jose's $10 million), with no obligation to anyone in 09.
Moreover, Furcal takes the place of Uribe, who would have cost them $5 million. Therefore they would actually save $2 million with Furcal vs. Contreras and Uribe.
Does anyone understand exactly what that additional $4 million due Furcal in January of 2009 is all about?

Hopefully by 2009 we would have a good young short stop from next year's high draft choice, which a possible 4th or 5th place finish this year would net them.
What they decide to do then is a big question, but at least they would have some flexibility.

Tragg
08-18-2007, 04:17 PM
If there is any validity to this talk of exchanging the contracts of Furcal and Contreras, why wouldn't this be a great move for the Sox?
Because a massive amount of salary is still on the books and tied to not that much production.

A great move would be to get a quality young player and have Contreras' salary off the books.

I didn't think Contreras was that bad last night; I think several teams would take him, but they are going to play extreme hard ball with Williams and will try to get Williams to take back a lot, if not most, of that salary. That would be pointless.

areilly
08-18-2007, 05:12 PM
If there is any validity to this talk of exchanging the contracts of Furcal and Contreras, why wouldn't this be a great move for the Sox?
[snip]
Hopefully by 2009 we would have a good young short stop from next year's high draft choice, which a possible 4th or 5th place finish this year would net them.
What they decide to do then is a big question, but at least they would have some flexibility.


I like your thinking and would not be opposed to a JC for RF swap. What I don't like is that we as fans (myself included) are already saying what a great year 2009 could be... :whiner:

35th&Shields
08-19-2007, 11:37 AM
Then why did KW give a 3/30 contract to a mid-40 year old?

I don't know. Ask Kenny.