PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf On 2008


Lip Man 1
09-09-2007, 12:38 PM
Sounds encouraging...

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/548844,091SPT2.article

Lip

ilsox7
09-09-2007, 12:40 PM
You mean all of the posters here claiming that our payroll would certainly drop 15-20% next year were wrong? The blasphemy of it all!

DickAllen72
09-09-2007, 01:02 PM
Maintaining the same dollar amount of payroll is actually a payroll cut due to inflation/rising cost of players salaries.

If they are cutting from $109M to $100M that's even worse and is going to make it very difficult for KW to turn this team around.

It would probably take about a $125M payroll to get this team back on track due to the scarcity of talent coming from the minor league system.

If anyone can do it, however, it's KW so lets just watch what he tries to do.

LITTLE NELL
09-09-2007, 01:09 PM
Even though we won 90 games, 2006 should also rank right up there in major dissapointments. I think we were 28 games over .500 at the all star break and went 10 under the rest of the way. JR is finally starting to run the team like a big market entity instead of the small market mentality he had for years.

Hitmen77
09-09-2007, 03:18 PM
Sounds encouraging...

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/548844,091SPT2.article

Lip

Scot Gregor of the Daily Herald had similar comments on White Sox Weekly yesterday. He said that continued strong fan support will help the Sox to be buyers in the upcoming free agent market.

TomBradley72
09-09-2007, 06:36 PM
Personally...I'm not worried about the level of commitment and the willingness for a $100M+ payroll...I'm worried about how you fill holes in LF, CF, SS, 2B, two starting rotation spots and 3-4 bullpen spots when your farm system is weak and you have minimal trade bait. Along with that, the positions that are not "holes" are filled by aging/slow footed players like Thome, Dye, AJ and Konerko...and you're counting on Crede coming back from back surgery.

kitekrazy
09-09-2007, 07:32 PM
JR is finally starting to run the team like a big market entity instead of the small market mentality he had for years.

I'm still not 100% convinced. He doesn't like long term deals. I can't blame him since he seems to get burned on a lot of them.

ilsox7
09-09-2007, 09:04 PM
I'm still not 100% convinced. He doesn't like long term deals. I can't blame him since he seems to get burned on a lot of them.

Most teams get burned on them. There have been very few deals of 5+ years that have worked out for a team.

DumpJerry
09-09-2007, 09:57 PM
I am pumped for next year. Even before reading this thread.

This year was a perfect storm of anything that could go wrong, it would. We have a bunch of bench guys starting because of a massive amount of injuries which created a domino effect on the few starters that are still active this year. Other than the starting pitchers, I think the only starters among the position players who have not gone down at one point or another or got traded are Pierzynski, Uribe and Konerko. All other starters, Pods, Erstad, Dye, Crede, and Thome have had time off due to injuries. Iguchi got traded. As a result, we have had people like Fields, Owens, Cintron, Gonzalez, Sweeney, and Richar and others fill in as starters-something they are not presently equipped to do on a contending team.

If we have good health next year and a couple of good pick-ups *cough* Hunter *cough*, next year will be a good one.

Martinigirl
09-09-2007, 09:58 PM
What exactly could Jerry say that would make everyone believe he was serious about winning next year?

I am not really sure how anyone could say, after seeing him in 2005, that he is indifferent or really doesn't want to win. He does. He has invested not only a lot of money, but a good portion of his life and heart, into this team. As painful as it is for us to watch, it has got to be one hundred times worse for him.

I believe that he will do everything possible to fix this team, if for no other reason than he doesn't want to watch a **** season like this again in his lifetime.*

*And I also believe the same thing could be said about Kenny Williams

Hitmen77
09-09-2007, 10:13 PM
Personally...I'm not worried about the level of commitment and the willingness for a $100M+ payroll...I'm worried about how you fill holes in LF, CF, SS, 2B, two starting rotation spots and 3-4 bullpen spots when your farm system is weak and you have minimal trade bait. Along with that, the positions that are not "holes" are filled by aging/slow footed players like Thome, Dye, AJ and Konerko...and you're counting on Crede coming back from back surgery.

How do you figure? We have Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez and Danks (assuming we can unload Contreras). Plus the Sox won't use free agency to fill the 5th spot with pitchers like Gio Gonzalez and Jack Egbert waiting in the wings.

If you mean you think the Sox will trade Garland - if that did happen, I think he would bring back someone in return to fill one of those other holes you mentioned.

Plus I don't think the Sox will be looking to fill 4 bullpen spots. I think that at least Jenks, Thornton, Logan, and Wasserman will be on this team next year.

Noneck
09-09-2007, 10:26 PM
Does the Sox budget and subsequently the amount that will spent on payroll come out before or after the season ticket holders final commitment for next year?

kittle42
09-09-2007, 11:05 PM
Does the Sox budget and subsequently the amount that will spent on payroll come out before or after the season ticket holders final commitment for next year?

Ha.

JB98
09-09-2007, 11:25 PM
Personally...I'm not worried about the level of commitment and the willingness for a $100M+ payroll...I'm worried about how you fill holes in LF, CF, SS, 2B, two starting rotation spots and 3-4 bullpen spots when your farm system is weak and you have minimal trade bait. Along with that, the positions that are not "holes" are filled by aging/slow footed players like Thome, Dye, AJ and Konerko...and you're counting on Crede coming back from back surgery.

There is no doubt that Thome, Dye, AJ and Konerko are slow-footed. But I'm curious as to why so many people refer to that group as "aging." This is not the San Francisco Giants, folks. Of the four, only Thome is in the twilight of his career.

Konerko is 31. AJ is 30. I'm pretty sure both those guys have 4-5 good years left in them. Dye is 33. I think he'll be a good player for us for the two years the Sox are committed to him.

Other than Thome and Contreras, this is not an "aging" team.

IlliniSox4Life
09-10-2007, 02:00 AM
There is no doubt that Thome, Dye, AJ and Konerko are slow-footed. But I'm curious as to why so many people refer to that group as "aging." This is not the San Francisco Giants, folks. Of the four, only Thome is in the twilight of his career.

Konerko is 31. AJ is 30. I'm pretty sure both those guys have 4-5 good years left in them. Dye is 33. I think he'll be a good player for us for the two years the Sox are committed to him.

Other than Thome and Contreras, this is not an "aging" team.

Are they going to be older tomorrow then they are today? Yes? Then they're aging.

harwar
09-10-2007, 06:52 AM
I am not really sure how anyone could say, after seeing him in 2005, that he is indifferent or really doesn't want to win.
Yes,I will never forget watching him deplane while holding that trophy like his newborn son.

TomBradley72
09-10-2007, 09:37 AM
How do you figure? We have Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez and Danks (assuming we can unload Contreras). Plus the Sox won't use free agency to fill the 5th spot with pitchers like Gio Gonzalez and Jack Egbert waiting in the wings.

If you mean you think the Sox will trade Garland - if that did happen, I think he would bring back someone in return to fill one of those other holes you mentioned.

Plus I don't think the Sox will be looking to fill 4 bullpen spots. I think that at least Jenks, Thornton, Logan, and Wasserman will be on this team next year.

It's a sign of what a mediocre roster we have that one of our "solutions" next year will be a guy (Danks) who's record this year is 6-13, 5.41...Danks might be a good prospect but assuming we don't have a problem there is unrealistic. I'm OK w/Jenks and Wasserman...Logan and Thornton both have ERAs inthe 4.80+ range...again..they might bounce back...but to go into 2008 assuming those two roles are "set" (at the quality required to return to the World Series) is unrealistic.

cws05champ
09-10-2007, 11:00 AM
It's a sign of what a mediocre roster we have that one of our "solutions" next year will be a guy (Danks) who's record this year is 6-13, 5.41...Danks might be a good prospect but assuming we don't have a problem there is unrealistic. I'm OK w/Jenks and Wasserman...Logan and Thornton both have ERAs inthe 4.80+ range...again..they might bounce back...but to go into 2008 assuming those two roles are "set" (at the quality required to return to the World Series) is unrealistic.

What's your solution then...to shelf Danks or trade him? You need to give young guys a chance to picth in the majors and make adjustments. He is only 22 yrs old and IMO will only improve. If he improves his ERa to 4.5-4.75 next year I'd be happy, as long as he continues to improve.

TomBradley72
09-10-2007, 11:11 AM
What's your solution then...to shelf Danks or trade him? You need to give young guys a chance to picth in the majors and make adjustments. He is only 22 yrs old and IMO will only improve. If he improves his ERa to 4.5-4.75 next year I'd be happy, as long as he continues to improve.

My point through this whole thread is that I don't question JR/KW's commitment to winning or to a competitive payroll...I do question if ANYONE can turnaround this team for 2008 based on how mediocre the talent is on our roster and in the organization overall. Ideally, Danks would go into next year as a #5. That puts Garland and Contreras as our #3 and #4...so based on that scenario, and how they performed this year...we've got big problems.

infohawk
09-10-2007, 02:00 PM
Plus I don't think the Sox will be looking to fill 4 bullpen spots. I think that at least Jenks, Thornton, Logan, and Wasserman will be on this team next year.
I'm betting Myers will be in the 'pen instead of Logan. KW didn't pick Myers up for this year. I think Myers has an option that the Sox will surely pick up. KW has liked this guy for a long time.

Corlose 15
09-10-2007, 04:25 PM
The problem is Myers has sucked.

Lukin13
09-10-2007, 05:16 PM
I hope we don't spend just for the sake of spending; I am not in love with any of the free agent crop that will be available. I like Hunter, but I am not sure I even like him twelve-fifteen times more than I like one of our kids.

I am thoroughly convinced that these are the keys to success for the Sox in the currenet MLB era:

1. Always keep your team close, never completely rebuild. With the wildcard and the unpredictable streaks pitchers can get on in the playoffs; despite the lack of a salary cap there are 20 teams that can win the WS every year. Make sure you are poised to be competetive every year, you never know what could happen.

2. Stockpile younger arms; ride the hot hand and don't waste big $ on veteran starting pitching. You can always "rent-an-arm" in the fall if you need one or two.

3. Defense is important, a strong defense can help your staff more than any one 10 million a year starter can. I would never start a below average defender at any position. I am a strong believer that our pitching wasn't too far off from their '05 form in '06... it was the mostly the defense behind them that caused the jump in team era. Almost everyday I see a play not being made that has led to either the flood gates being opened and/or several more pitches being thrown to get out of an inning the team should have already been out of.

4. Offensively we need to target decent OBP guys that have had career 20+ HR pop elsewhere. The Sox play at the Cell, they are in the AL and their current team leaders are not speed demons... this is the last team in baseball that needs to try and play small ball. We need guys that get on base, not guys that hit .250, only walk 30 times a year but they can steal 30 bases. This forum is made up of diehard baseball fans; and we generally like to see the game played "the way it should be played", but I really do not think small-ball is the road back to the WS for our Sox. When just eyeballing some stats it appears outside of an aging Thome we have no one on this team that has an above average OBP for their hr,rbi,avg/postion/salary. Kenny really shouldn't add another player to this roster that does not have a strong on base percentage. Especially, with players like Dye, Fields, and Richar seemingly being part of the team's future until the end of the decade.

5. The bullpen is a shot in the dark; there is only so much Kenny can do. You need to get lucky here, teams can spend and spend, but outside of a few of the obvious closers; relievers run hot for a few years and then fizzle. Coming into '07 there might have been 5 teams tops that wouldn't have traded their pen for the Sox pen, and no team wouldn't have swapped with the Tigers... and look how that turned out. Look at the success the Cubs have had with Marmol, Howry and Dempster... you just never know with the pen. Most relievers are exposed so very little their numbers really do not reflect how solid they really are.

JB98
09-10-2007, 06:20 PM
My point through this whole thread is that I don't question JR/KW's commitment to winning or to a competitive payroll...I do question if ANYONE can turnaround this team for 2008 based on how mediocre the talent is on our roster and in the organization overall. Ideally, Danks would go into next year as a #5. That puts Garland and Contreras as our #3 and #4...so based on that scenario, and how they performed this year...we've got big problems.

The odds are Garland will turn things around next year. He's coming off back-to-back 18-win seasons. Now, he's having a down year. The bullpen has let him down, as it has all our starters. Jon has pitched well enough to be a 13- or 14-game winner this season, despite his woes in August. He's only 27. It's not like he's getting old (like Contreras). I look for Garland to bounce back next year, much like Buehrle bounced back from a poor 2006.

DSpivack
09-10-2007, 06:34 PM
The odds are Garland will turn things around next year. He's coming off back-to-back 18-win seasons. Now, he's having a down year. The bullpen has let him down, as it has all our starters. Jon has pitched well enough to be a 13- or 14-game winner this season, despite his woes in August. He's only 27. It's not like he's getting old (like Contreras). I look for Garland to bounce back next year, much like Buehrle bounced back from a poor 2006.

Looking at his career, this season seems par for the course for Garland. 2005 he had what now looks to be a career year. In some ways, Jon is very consistent; his era this year is around 4.50, as it was in 2002, 2003, and 2006. 2004 (4.89) was an unusually bad season, 2005 unusually good (3.50). That's not to say he's a bad pitcher; he's a good number 3 or 4, but nothing more.

JB98
09-10-2007, 06:44 PM
Looking at his career, this season seems par for the course for Garland. 2005 he had what now looks to be a career year. In some ways, Jon is very consistent; his era this year is around 4.50, as it was in 2002, 2003, and 2006. 2004 (4.89) was an unusually bad season, 2005 unusually good (3.50). That's not to say he's a bad pitcher; he's a good number 3 or 4, but nothing more.

He is a No. 3 pitcher, and we need a No. 3 pitcher in order to win next year.

Put Contreras or Danks in that spot, and we are going to find ourselves closer to the bottom of the division than the top once again.

Hitmen77
09-10-2007, 08:57 PM
It's a sign of what a mediocre roster we have that one of our "solutions" next year will be a guy (Danks) who's record this year is 6-13, 5.41...Danks might be a good prospect but assuming we don't have a problem there is unrealistic. I'm OK w/Jenks and Wasserman...Logan and Thornton both have ERAs inthe 4.80+ range...again..they might bounce back...but to go into 2008 assuming those two roles are "set" (at the quality required to return to the World Series) is unrealistic.

Any successful team must rely on home grown talent to succeed. We can't start looking to fill holes when talented rookies like Danks or Fields struggle. Does that mean that Danks is guaranteed to succeed next year? Of course not - but we need to rely on them for our chance of success.

By the way, I recall that the Indians last year had a pitcher who was 1-10, 5.42. It's a good thing for them that they gave up on that guy.

As far as Logan and Thornton - neither guy excites me either, but I'm not sure the Sox have many options. We have so many holes in the bullpen that there is no way the Sox are going to fill 4 spots in the bullpen through trades or free agency.

DSpivack
09-10-2007, 09:43 PM
He is a No. 3 pitcher, and we need a No. 3 pitcher in order to win next year.

Put Contreras or Danks in that spot, and we are going to find ourselves closer to the bottom of the division than the top once again.

No argument there, but I don't see him 'turning it around' next year; I think this is the real Jon Garland.

misty60481
09-10-2007, 09:50 PM
Lokin13 has it right we need hitters with good OBP, that have 20+ HR. power, we have too many punch & judy type hitters. When we hit HRs. we win games. The bull pen is a big crap shoot, next year McDougle, Thornton, Logan, might be lights out. Other than the utility players we ve used to fill in the defense hasnt been that bad, I cant count the short hop throws Paulie has scooped up.

dickallen15
09-10-2007, 10:15 PM
The odds are Garland will turn things around next year. He's coming off back-to-back 18-win seasons. Now, he's having a down year. The bullpen has let him down, as it has all our starters. Jon has pitched well enough to be a 13- or 14-game winner this season, despite his woes in August. He's only 27. It's not like he's getting old (like Contreras). I look for Garland to bounce back next year, much like Buehrle bounced back from a poor 2006.
The odds are Garland and his $12 million contract will be someone else's problem in 2008.

GoSox2K3
09-10-2007, 10:34 PM
I'm betting Myers will be in the 'pen instead of Logan. KW didn't pick Myers up for this year. I think Myers has an option that the Sox will surely pick up. KW has liked this guy for a long time.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:o8Xbr4BcsSxIGM:http://www.costpernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/moe-szyslak.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.costpernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/moe-szyslak.gif&imgrefurl=http://stuffontv.blogspot.com/&h=768&w=1024&sz=114&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=o8Xbr4BcsSxIGM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmoe%2Bsimpsons%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D 10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DDKUS,DKUS:2006-40,DKUS:en%26sa%3DN)
Oh, dear God, no!!

Myers has been terrible since he joined us. Nice 3 run bomb dinger he gave up tonight:angry:. He's 38 and he's washed up. I think the Sox are wasting their time running him out there. I'd rather see what Phillips and Broadway (people who actually may have a future) can show us.

If the Sox pick up Myers's option, they're just wasting $1 million.

JB98
09-10-2007, 10:44 PM
The odds are Garland and his $12 million contract will be someone else's problem in 2008.

Well, that would be a shame. I see Garland as part of the solution for the Sox in 2008, not as part of the problem.

Nellie_Fox
09-10-2007, 11:02 PM
I like Hunter, but I am not sure I even like him twelve-fifteen times more than I like one of our kids.MLB pay isn't a direct, one-to-one relationship to talent. It's more like the Richter Scale: an increase of one measure of talent gets a ten-fold increase in pay.

Grzegorz
09-11-2007, 04:44 AM
Well, that would be a shame. I see Garland as part of the solution for the Sox in 2008, not as part of the problem.

Is it possible to have Contreras in the rotation and Garland out of the rotation? If Garland is traded why not back up the truck and start over?

Just don't tell us that the Chicago White Sox of 2008 are going to contend; without keeping the starting rotation in place, sans Contreras, this team is just pretending.

Why pretend? Just start over by dealing most of the veterans and play the major league talent you hopefully dealt for.

Corlose 15
09-11-2007, 06:22 AM
If Floyd continues to pitch well as a starter the last two weeks here, does anyone else feel comfortable giving him a major look in ST next year?

jabrch
09-11-2007, 08:52 AM
If Floyd continues to pitch well as a starter the last two weeks here, does anyone else feel comfortable giving him a major look in ST next year?

He absolutely deserves a look. Why not?

spawn
09-11-2007, 09:34 AM
He absolutely deserves a look. Why not?
Agreed.

spiffie
09-11-2007, 09:46 AM
If Floyd continues to pitch well as a starter the last two weeks here, does anyone else feel comfortable giving him a major look in ST next year?
Hopefully unlike this year he won't pitch so terribly all spring that he gives away the job the Sox so badly wanted him to have.

Lip Man 1
09-11-2007, 11:26 AM
Ozzie doesn't seem sure on Floyd.

"I still wonder. I still wonder. I'm happy every time he comes out and does good. One thing about it, he's confusing us, at least me. He's confusing me because one day he's unbelievable and the next day he's all over the place, and that's why one day you say you don't know if he's ready but then five days later you say, 'Wow, this kid has everything.' '' -- Ozzie to Nat Whalen, Daily Southtown.

Lip

JB98
09-11-2007, 01:13 PM
Is it possible to have Contreras in the rotation and Garland out of the rotation? If Garland is traded why not back up the truck and start over?

Just don't tell us that the Chicago White Sox of 2008 are going to contend; without keeping the starting rotation in place, sans Contreras, this team is just pretending.

Why pretend? Just start over by dealing most of the veterans and play the major league talent you hopefully dealt for.

For me, here's the bottom line: If Garland is dealt and the Sox try to tell us we have a contending team with Contreras as the No. 3 pitcher in the rotation, I'll be shaking my head in dismay.

I assume Danks will be better next year thanks to the experience he got this year. But he has yet to prove he can consistently pitch into the seventh inning. The jury is still out on Floyd, and I assume he would be the man to move into the rotation if Garland is dealt. Contreras looks like he's done to me.

As I've posted earlier, we're not contenders if we get into this Buehrle-and-Javy-and-pray-for-rain scenario. Frankly, I'd be more comfortable with Vazquez as the No. 4 man in the rotation. At worst, he's going to be No. 3 next year.

I would support a rebuilding project, if that's what KW and Ozzie decide is necessary. We are very far away, and it may take two or three years to get back. What I won't accept is bringing back a roster similar to what we have this year and being told that we expect to contend. I won't believe that. Sox fans are not stupid. You can't put whipped cream on a pile of horse**** and tell us it's chocolate pudding. Especially now that we've witnessed a championship team and we all know what it takes.

Lip Man 1
09-11-2007, 05:39 PM
JB:

Don't know if you saw my question to Mark Gonzales about 2008 and a recent comment by Ozzie in the Sox Mailbag. Here it is:

Ozzie made this comment after the Sox lost to Detroit on September 6th. Can you please explain it? "If we're going to put a team out there and we know we're not going to win, we're better off telling the fans," Guillen said. "I will say it, and I might get in trouble. I'm not going to be in the same position now I was in the summer. I'm not going to put myself in the position to lie to the fans." What EXACTLY was Ozzie implying? -- Mark Liptak, Chubbuck, Idaho

He says he's not going to lie if he sees this team isn't capable of competing for the division title. As for his reference to this summer, there was the hope in some parties that if they kept the team together and got Podsednik and Erstad back, they could actually make a run for the wild card and thought their claim was backed up when Cleveland struggled at the start of the second half. I never believed this because of the inconsistency of the offense and bullpen. Talent lies in the beholder's eyes, and Kenny believes the nucleus is there for a run in 2008. We'll see after what figures to be an eventful off-season.

Lip

kitekrazy
09-11-2007, 06:41 PM
I would support a rebuilding project, if that's what KW and Ozzie decide is necessary. We are very far away, and it may take two or three years to get back. What I won't accept is bringing back a roster similar to what we have this year and being told that we expect to contend. I won't believe that. Sox fans are not stupid. You can't put whipped cream on a pile of horse**** and tell us it's chocolate pudding. Especially now that we've witnessed a championship team and we all know what it takes.

They are doing a rebuilding project with keeping some of the pitching intact. If they don't hold on to Garland I hope after 2008 they break the bank to get Santana.

JB98
09-11-2007, 11:15 PM
JB:

Don't know if you saw my question to Mark Gonzales about 2008 and a recent comment by Ozzie in the Sox Mailbag. Here it is:

Ozzie made this comment after the Sox lost to Detroit on September 6th. Can you please explain it? "If we're going to put a team out there and we know we're not going to win, we're better off telling the fans," Guillen said. "I will say it, and I might get in trouble. I'm not going to be in the same position now I was in the summer. I'm not going to put myself in the position to lie to the fans." What EXACTLY was Ozzie implying? -- Mark Liptak, Chubbuck, Idaho

He says he's not going to lie if he sees this team isn't capable of competing for the division title. As for his reference to this summer, there was the hope in some parties that if they kept the team together and got Podsednik and Erstad back, they could actually make a run for the wild card and thought their claim was backed up when Cleveland struggled at the start of the second half. I never believed this because of the inconsistency of the offense and bullpen. Talent lies in the beholder's eyes, and Kenny believes the nucleus is there for a run in 2008. We'll see after what figures to be an eventful off-season.

Lip

Yes, Lip, I did read that. This year, I don't feel like I was lied to. In April, I felt we would contend if Buehrle and Contreras returned to form and the bullpen came together. Buehrle did, in fact, return to form, but everything else was a disaster. No one foresaw the collapse of the offense either.

We were 29-42 in late June, and at that point, I wrote the season off. I know KW was talking in the papers throughout July about us being "buyers," but truthfully, I took that as posturing to try to get the best possible deal. Another interpretation would be that KW was trying to talk himself, the team and the fans into the notion that we still had a chance. Personally, I didn't look at it that way. Maybe Ozzie did, and that's what he means when he talks about "lying to the fans."

JB98
09-11-2007, 11:19 PM
They are doing a rebuilding project with keeping some of the pitching intact. If they don't hold on to Garland I hope after 2008 they break the bank to get Santana.

How are they rebuilding? Yes, I know Owens, Fields and Richar are getting an extended look. But those guys didn't become regulars until we were woefully out of the race. If we were in the race, I guarantee you we'd still be seeing Pods and Erstad out there every day, young players be damned.

Grzegorz
09-12-2007, 04:44 AM
I assume Danks will be better next year thanks to the experience he got this year. But he has yet to prove he can consistently pitch into the seventh inning. The jury is still out on Floyd, and I assume he would be the man to move into the rotation if Garland is dealt. Contreras looks like he's done to me.

On paper without Garland or an equivalent starter I do not see the Chicago White Sox being a serious contender for the 2008 AL Central title.

I do not want to see Contreras next year; he's like the fifteen year old lawn mower you're hoping to get just one more year from. I also do not want to see Uribe at SS; these late season power surges impress no one.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.