PDA

View Full Version : Keep Garland for '08?


Mohoney
09-26-2007, 10:17 PM
I know that Garland is the one tradable commodity that we have that can bring back real value, and I know that this team has quite a few holes (I would say SS, OF, the bench, and about 4 or 5 bullpen spots). I'm also aware of the money that can potentially be reclaimed by trading him.

However, the thing that really worries me is if we trade him, whoever takes that spot in the rotation will almost certainly be a downgrade, and could hypothetically be a huge downgrade.

If I had my choice, I would never create a hole in the rotation to fix other needs unless I had no other option. Starting pitching is the most important piece to the puzzle.

ChiSoxGirl
09-26-2007, 10:21 PM
I was looking for a reason/place to post my thoughts on this, so thanks for providing me with one.

In my opinion, you build the rotation around guys like Buehrle & Garland. We saw in 2005 that good starting pitching is a major part of what wins you ballgames, and these guys are really good (if not great) pitchers. I understand that you have to trade something to get something of value in return, but in this case, I just don't part with Garland. Having a rotation whose top three is Buehrle, Garland, & Vazquez would be a hell of a way to go into 2008!

alohafri
09-26-2007, 10:22 PM
I'm not the biggest Garland fan on the block, but I can't see getting rid of him. He is sometimes near brilliant (much of this month), and sometimes horrible (July against the Yankees). But, as you say, you won't get his true value and I think trading him would put us out of contention for a few years.

Daver
09-26-2007, 10:35 PM
I'm not the biggest Garland fan on the block, but I can't see getting rid of him. He is sometimes near brilliant (much of this month), and sometimes horrible (July against the Yankees). But, as you say, you won't get his true value and I think trading him would put us out of contention for a few years.

All pitchers are inconsistent, it is the nature of the position. Garland is inconsistent by the week or the month, but not by the the season, he has a track record of that, and he has shown he doesn't get hurt, that is the key. You build your rotation on guys that will be there all season, and can be relied on, you suffer their dips, but in the end you have a quality staff.

Dread Farmer
09-26-2007, 10:49 PM
He (should) be gone. Trade value for more value! We won't be good with Garland. He can bring 2 ready to play high ceiling youngsters. There's too many of us that think we can spend like the NY, LA or Cubans. Follow the paths of teams with top 15 payrolls not top 5. Atlanta and San Diego are good examples.

Martinigirl
09-26-2007, 10:51 PM
I think it would be a huge mistake. You don't give up a pitcher like Jon. He is young, stays healthy, and over the past three years has an outstanding record.

And who do we replace him with? How to we fix this team if we get rid of one of our most dependable starters? The starting pitching is not what needs to be overhauled, and tearing it apart to fix other problems would seem to be counterproductive.

Hitmen77
09-26-2007, 10:58 PM
I was looking for a reason/place to post my thoughts on this, so thanks for providing me with one.

In my opinion, you build the rotation around guys like Buehrle & Garland. We saw in 2005 that good starting pitching is a major part of what wins you ballgames, and these guys are really good (if not great) pitchers. I understand that you have to trade something to get something of value in return, but in this case, I just don't part with Garland. Having a rotation whose top three is Buehrle, Garland, & Vazquez would be a hell of a way to go into 2008!

I agree. I'm not too happy with the idea of trading Garland this offseason. I don't care how good Gio Gonzalez or Jack Egbert are - it is very unlikely that they can fill the hole created by Garland leaving.

I'm never going to say never though because there might be some blockbuster deal for Garland that could really help the Sox.

I hope the Sox instead trade Jose. Now that he's rebounded over his last 9 or 10 starts, maybe the Sox won't have to eat as much of his salary as once feared.

Brian26
09-26-2007, 11:16 PM
Follow the paths of teams with top 15 payrolls not top 5. Atlanta and San Diego are good examples.

Follow the lead of Atlanta, who dominated for over a decade with Glavine, Smoltz and Maddux? That means you keep Garland.

Garland, Buehrle, and Vazquez are the guys you need next year, and you hope some combination of Floyd, Danks, Contreras or FA will do the trick for #4 and 5.

WLL1855
09-26-2007, 11:17 PM
He (should) be gone. Trade value for more value! We won't be good with Garland. He can bring 2 ready to play high ceiling youngsters. There's too many of us that think we can spend like the NY, LA or Cubans. Follow the paths of teams with top 15 payrolls not top 5. Atlanta and San Diego are good examples.

I'd love to hear what two blue chip prospects you think Garland would bring in a trade. It seems to me that teams are extremely reluctant to part with "future stars" nowdays. I can't recall a trade in the last couple of years that worked out on the side of the team getting prospects for a proven veteran.

DumpJerry
09-26-2007, 11:25 PM
He (should) be gone. Trade value for more value! We won't be good with Garland. He can bring 2 ready to play high ceiling youngsters. There's too many of us that think we can spend like the NY, LA or Cubans. Follow the paths of teams with top 15 payrolls not top 5. Atlanta and San Diego are good examples.
Aren't we already #5 or 6 in payroll in MLB?

Dread: stop reading the Cubune, they'll have you believing that we cut payroll from '06 to '07 (it increased).

chisoxmike
09-26-2007, 11:31 PM
You trade Garland you immediately give up on 2008. Pitching, pitching, pitching!

DumpJerry
09-26-2007, 11:43 PM
Jon Garland is our right handed version of Mark Buehrle.

Noneck
09-27-2007, 12:08 AM
I'd hate to lose a pitcher like Garland but who else on the club holds any value. At the very minimum we need 2 for the bullpen, a ss and maybe 2nd, and maybe a cf. How do we fill these holes? Of course if that does happen they have to rely on Jose to be the #3 and the kiddie corps. to be 4 and 5. Thats real scary.

AJ Hellraiser
09-27-2007, 12:28 AM
I think Garland is gone because I don't see Reinsdorf giving Buehrle deals to 2 pitchers... and Jon isn't going to sign for anything less than what Buehrle got....

I see the advantages and disadvantages to trading him but would withold judgment until I see what we'd get in return if he were dealt...

Of course, if we were to reach terms with him that would be fine also...

And yes, I understand he has 1 year left but I don't think they are going to wait and go into the season with him in a walk year ala MB... By the time spring training 2008 rolls around Garland will either be locked up long term or in another uniform....

Grzegorz
09-27-2007, 04:52 AM
You trade Garland you immediately give up on 2008. Pitching, pitching, pitching!

Absolutely; why is this scenario hard to grasp for some people? Trading Jon Garland means the Chicago White Sox are rebuilding. If that is the case, why sign Buehrle and Dye? Why not trade Thome?

He (should) be gone. Trade value for more value! We won't be good with Garland. He can bring 2 ready to play high ceiling youngsters.

So you see one of those two "high ceiling youngsters" stepping into the rotation? If not, who in the organization assumes Garland's role in the rotation?

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2007, 06:12 AM
I think it's likely (but not certain) that Garland will be traded.

Unless the Sox get a huge return, I think trading him would be a mistake.

If a pitcher must be traded, then trade Contreras.

If the idea is to trade big salaries in order to spread that money around to upgrade several positions, I'd rather trade Contreras and Paulie and put Fields at 1B. That frees up $22 million to upgrade at SS and CF - one of whom should be able to lead off - because then Owens can play LF and bat ninth.

spawn
09-27-2007, 08:00 AM
I say keep Garland. Why get rid of a good, consistent, young starting pitcher? The rotation and the '08 Sox take a step back if he's traded. Besides, I don't think starting pitching is our chief concern here. It's the abysmal bullpen that needs adjusting.

hi im skot
09-27-2007, 08:11 AM
I think it's likely (but not certain) that Garland will be traded.

Unless the Sox get a huge return, I think trading him would be a mistake.

If a pitcher must be traded, then trade Contreras.

If the idea is to trade big salaries in order to spread that money around to upgrade several positions, I'd rather trade Contreras and Paulie and put Fields at 1B. That frees up $22 million to upgrade at SS and CF - one of whom should be able to lead off - because then Owens can play LF and bat ninth.

I mean no offense, but I really don't understand the obsession with trading Konerko and bringing Fields over to first.

Back to the topic at hand, you've gotta keep Garland. If Buehrle and Vazquez can repeat their 2007 performances (a little run support would be nice, too), and Garland does what he's capable of, we'll be in good shape.

MillerSoxFan
09-27-2007, 08:12 AM
You trade Garland you immediately give up on 2008. Pitching, pitching, pitching!
Exactly. The problem this year was with offense and the bullpen. Garland (and Buehrle and Vazquez) should have had at least 5 more wins apiece this year. Keep Garland!

ondafarm
09-27-2007, 08:40 AM
I think it's likely (but not certain) that Garland will be traded.

Unless the Sox get a huge return, I think trading him would be a mistake.

If a pitcher must be traded, then trade Contreras.

If the idea is to trade big salaries in order to spread that money around to upgrade several positions, I'd rather trade Contreras and Paulie and put Fields at 1B. That frees up $22 million to upgrade at SS and CF - one of whom should be able to lead off - because then Owens can play LF and bat ninth.

I like Frater's idea.

asindc
09-27-2007, 08:40 AM
I think Garland is gone because I don't see Reinsdorf giving Buehrle deals to 2 pitchers... and Jon isn't going to sign for anything less than what Buehrle got....

On what basis can Garland demand the same deal as Buerhrle? I can see him "asking" for the same deal, but at the end of the day, he can't possibly argue that he has had the same career as Buehrle so far. I don't see this as a major factor, frankly.

Keep Garland. Look around the majors, especially the NL. Quality, reliable, starting pitching is hard to come by. Especially with postseason experience and success. I'd rather trade a big bat first.

SBSoxFan
09-27-2007, 09:17 AM
All pitchers are inconsistent, it is the nature of the position. Garland is inconsistent by the week or the month, but not by the the season, he has a track record of that, and he has shown he doesn't get hurt, that is the key. You build your rotation on guys that will be there all season, and can be relied on, you suffer their dips, but in the end you have a quality staff.

I know wins don't necessarily equate to quality. However, the Sox will end the season with 4 guys with 10+ victories and 200+ innings, and Contreras, despite all his struggles still threw 182-2/3. How does that stack up against some other teams?

Team - # starters w/ 10+ wins - # starters with 200+ IP
----- --------------------- -----------------------
CHW - 4 - 3
LAA - 3 - 1
BOS - 3 (maybe 4) - 0 (maybe 2)
NYY - 3 - 1 (maybe 2)
CLE - 3 - 2
DET - 2 - 0 (maybe 1)

So, what might this mean? 1) The Sox' starting pitching is a strength. Keep it that way. Fill other holes via FA or trade not involving a starter. 2) The Sox' starting pitching is a strength. Deal from that strong position to plug other holes. :?: I'm glad I don't have to make the decision, but I'm leaning towards keeping the pitching intact.

oeo
09-27-2007, 09:41 AM
Jon Garland is our right handed version of Mark Buehrle.

And how? The only similarities are that they both throw a ton of innings, and are durable; that's it.

He's not, never has been, and never will be as good as Mark Buehrle, and therefore is not worth Mark Buehrle money. Trade him while you can still get good value for him.

chisoxmike
09-27-2007, 09:42 AM
And how? The only similarities are that they both throw a ton of innings, and are durable; that's it.

He's not, never has been, and never will be as good as Mark Buehrle, and therefore is not worth Mark Buehrle money. Trade him while you can still get good value for him.

Give me a ****ing break. Let's trade Garland and lets keep Erhen Wasserman in the bullpen for '08. Geeeeeez.

billcissell
09-27-2007, 09:43 AM
Based on history, the strength of this franchise has and always will be pitching.

Keep Garland and you have 3 bonafide starters for '08. Get rid of him and you run the risk of creating a huge hole in your rotation, which could easily translate into another 90+ loss season. IMO, there is no one of the current Sox staff or in our system that will come close to matching what Garland has done as a Sox pitcher.

Prospects for Garland? No thanks. Garland is a proven commodity. We know what he can do over the course of a season. He stays healthy and he'll give you many solid innings over the course of a year.

Too many "prospects" just don't pan out, whether it's everyday players or pitchers.

The real question is, will Reinsdorf give him a big long-term contract?

Goose
09-27-2007, 10:01 AM
I am not in either camp just yet, but for those of you in the Keep Jon camp, you claim that SP is the key to winning (and I agree to a certain extent). But fielding quality position players is also a key to winning. How do you propose we fill all of the hole we currently have without trading something of value? Jon is the most valuable right now. Our needs are plentiful (SS, CF, LF, 2B, leadoff).

Those are too many holes and if left neglected, will result in a similar year as we saw this year - i.e., non-playoff bound.

How many quality FAs are the Sox realistically going to sign? I think just one: CF. That leaves SS, LF, 2B (unless you think Richar is the answer, I am not sure yet) and leadoff. If you throw fields into one of those places, then you have no backup 3B with the possibility of Crede going down.

Don't even get me started with the bullpen. That is a HUGE hole that I have not even discussed yet and something that MUST be fixed going into 2008. How do you propose we will that hole? FA? Without a trade(s), we will be throwing the same garbage out there every day for 2-3 innings.

In a perfect world, we would keep JG and fill those holes with some FA and some rooks, but as we all know, we are not the Yankees or the AL Cubs or their cousin the NL Cubs either. We are also not MIN or The Dodgers with a deep farm.

Big named players will be sent packing this winter and I would not be surprised if Jon was the first to go. There is no other way to correct this mistake we call the 2007 White Sox.

Martinigirl
09-27-2007, 10:55 AM
I mean no offense, but I really don't understand the obsession with trading Konerko and bringing Fields over to first.



You are not alone. I can't understand how that would help this team, unless the Sox are rebuilding for a few years down the road, which I hope to god is not the case.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2007, 11:57 AM
History shows pitching wins pennants. Garland is a proven commodity still in his prime, he's not ancient and he's still productive.

Why would you want to trade that?

I know because Gavin Floyd's waiting in the wings....LOL. But then so was Scott Ruffcorn and Rodney Bolton!

Lip

Lip Man 1
09-27-2007, 12:02 PM
Goose:

I understand your position and under the circumstances it has some validity no question.

The Sox are between a rock and a hard place.

It's up to the front office to find a way to fix the mess and they have to do it in a relatively short time.

The bar was raised in 2005, fans will not stand for a return to the days of the late 80's or late 90's.

I don't envy Kenny but that's why I guess, he makes the big bucks.

Lip

nccwsfan
09-27-2007, 12:11 PM
There's no doubt that Jon Garland is a quality starter who can help the 2008 team. Trading him in the offseason doesn't make sense unless they can get quality talent in return (and that's for KW to decide).

The real question is will they be able to re-sign him beyond 2008- If his status is in limbo by midseason and the White Sox aren't in the playoff picture you've got to strongly consider making some sort of deal.

Goose
09-27-2007, 12:29 PM
If his status is in limbo by midseason and the White Sox aren't in the playoff picture you've got to strongly consider making some sort of deal.

But see...that's the rub. You can't wait until July to trade him. You either extend him in the off season or you trade him in the off season. No in betweens. You saw what trash teams were offering for MB in July this year. You think Jon would harness a better load? No way. His value after this year will be less than it was at the begining.

If you wait until the trade deadline 2008, you will be giving him away.

thomas35forever
09-27-2007, 12:42 PM
Garland stays on the South Side. I don't see any reason for the Sox to give him up. All he had was an off year. After we trade Contreras (hopefully), we shouldn't get rid of anyone else in our rotation. We need them if we're going to make a run next year.

RCWHITESOX
09-27-2007, 01:01 PM
Garland stays on the South Side. I don't see any reason for the Sox to give him up. All he had was an off year. After we trade Contreras (hopefully), we shouldn't get rid of anyone else in our rotation. We need them if we're going to make a run next year.

Let's see now all we have to do is trade Contreras and his huge salary and at the tender age of somewhere between 40 & 60. I'll bet teams must be lining up to get in on that action. Folks you have to give up something of value to get something of equal value.We need help at SS CF and the bullpen.

nccwsfan
09-27-2007, 01:06 PM
But see...that's the rub. You can't wait until July to trade him. You either extend him in the off season or you trade him in the off season. No in betweens. You saw what trash teams were offering for MB in July this year. You think Jon would harness a better load? No way. His value after this year will be less than it was at the begining.

If you wait until the trade deadline 2008, you will be giving him away.

I agree on your thinking, but if Garland doesn't want to sign an extension and opts to go to Free Agency what does KW do? There is little they'd get in return, but I'd rather get something/anything in trade over letting him walk for draft picks.

If we're lucky Garland will be around after 2008, but the CWS have to be prepared for the possibility of moving him, whether it's this offseason or next season.

oeo
09-27-2007, 02:36 PM
Give me a ****ing break. Let's trade Garland and lets keep Erhen Wasserman in the bullpen for '08. Geeeeeez.

How are Garland and Wassermann even related? :?:

I'm glad to see that you're looking towards 2008, and 2008 only. That's the same thought process that got us to where were at right now. If we're not going to re-sign Garland (and unless he takes a discount, we shouldn't), then we should trade him. I want to win next year, too, but I also want to win in 2009, 2010, etc. If Garland can bring in a young SS, that can help us years down the road, do it.

History shows pitching wins pennants. Garland is a proven commodity still in his prime, he's not ancient and he's still productive.

Why would you want to trade that?

Because of the money he will be commanding after the season...

We'll get the best value for him over the offseason; if that hurts the '08 team but helps the future, so be it.

Garland stays on the South Side. I don't see any reason for the Sox to give him up. All he had was an off year. After we trade Contreras (hopefully), we shouldn't get rid of anyone else in our rotation. We need them if we're going to make a run next year.

An off year? The guy has had one year that's stuck out in his career, and that's 2005. Every other year has been mediocre, at best. Again, that's not worth what Mark Buehrle is getting.

What you're seeing from Garland this year, is what you get. Which I like, but not for $14+ million. Contracts for Buehrle, Garland, and Javy will take up 2/5 of our payroll. And people want more money spent on the bullpen...where's it going to come from? We're not the Yankees or the Red Sox; we have to take the hit and develop young guys on our offense and in our pitching staff.

russ99
09-27-2007, 04:56 PM
Let's see now all we have to do is trade Contreras and his huge salary and at the tender age of somewhere between 40 & 60. I'll bet teams must be lining up to get in on that action. Folks you have to give up something of value to get something of equal value.We need help at SS CF and the bullpen.

When GMs are lining up to give the likes of Jon Lieber, Kyle Lohse and Carlos Silva millions of dollars in the free agent market, you can be sure Kenny will get some offers for Contreras.

oeo
09-27-2007, 05:08 PM
When GMs are lining up to give the likes of Jon Lieber, Kyle Lohse and Carlos Silva millions of dollars in the free agent market, you can be sure Kenny will get some offers for Contreras.

This is what we thought about Buehrle and Garcia, as well. We thought we would get big offers for Buehrle: didn't happen. We also thought we could get a killing for Freddy Garcia: didn't happen.

The free agent market is not equating to the trade market.

spiffie
09-27-2007, 05:15 PM
This is what we thought about Buehrle and Garcia, as well. We thought we would get big offers for Buehrle: didn't happen. We also thought we could get a killing for Freddy Garcia: didn't happen.

The free agent market is not equating to the trade market.
Right now in baseball even for poor teams there is far more money than top-level prospects. Teams are finding new ways to make money, along with baseball as a whole. But no one has yet figured out how to make more than 1 in 100 prospects turn into all-star caliber players. And with pitching, unless the deal is truly terrible, you can almost always get someone to take a proven pitcher off your hands. But making a Kazmir for Zambrano sort of trade is the kind of thing that gets a guy fired.

LITTLE NELL
09-27-2007, 05:26 PM
I say keep Garland. You can never have enough pitching, Garland takes the ball every 5th day and gives you over 200 innings a year. He had a couple of real stinkers this year but the whole team had stinkers. At this point I dont want to trade any of our starters. I also like what Im seeing from Floyd lately. Now the bullpen is another story.

Jjav829
09-27-2007, 05:54 PM
Garland is one of the few pieces we have that we could trade and get something decent in return. Contreras would simply be a salary dump. Crede's value is about as low as it can get right now. Konerko is an option, but I'm not sure it's one they want to explore. Garland makes more sense since he's a free agent after '08, and they may not want to pay him money similar to what Buehrle received.

I think they'll keep him, simply because he's probably worth more on the Sox than in a trade. I think quite a few teams would probably be interested in acquiring Garland, but I doubt any of them would give us enough in return to make trading Garland worthwhile.

The problem is that the Sox have quite a few holes to fill and very few options inside the organization to fill those holes, so KW is going to have to go outside the organization. Obviously trading Garland opens another hole, but KW will have to decide whether it's easier to fill that hole (which he may have to fill anyway if Garland isn't re-signed) or the others.

It may also depend on how the Sox do in free agency. If KW strikes it rich in free agency, maybe he decides to keep Garland and make the best run we can in 08 before getting the picks when Garland walks. If he loses out in free agency, he may feel forced to trade Garland to get several players who could help fill those holes.

BKozi
09-28-2007, 12:27 PM
I say trade Jon and see what you can get. People are talking about not wanting to rebuild, but whether you like it or not, we are in the midst of rebuilding right now. I think that it is pretty safe to say that there is no way we sign him after 2008. Without trading him, we will essentially be fielding the same team that we did this year so what makes you think that will put us in contention for next year? I would rather lose his 10-15 wins and get a couple of major league ready prospects than to stay the course, finish third or fourth next year and lose him in the offseason.

Sockinchisox
09-28-2007, 12:48 PM
Trade him w/o a doubt, there is 0 starting pitching on the market this year, the prime pitcher available will be Curt Schilling followed by Kenny Rogers. You'd be able to get a good player or two in return.

russ99
09-28-2007, 01:11 PM
This is what we thought about Buehrle and Garcia, as well. We thought we would get big offers for Buehrle: didn't happen. We also thought we could get a killing for Freddy Garcia: didn't happen.

The free agent market is not equating to the trade market.

Different situation.

Garcia and Buehrle are(were in the case of Freddy) all-star caliber pitchers, and the Sox wouldn't make a deal without getting a solid return. Same goes for Garland this year. Despite Floyd's semi-weak showing this season, that still was a pretty good return for Garcia, even if he wasn't injured.

In Contreras, the Sox want to drop salary and will take a lesser deal to do so. I don't expect other GMs to offer top prospects, but I do think a deal will get done, maybe for a second or third-tier young outfielder.

MCHSoxFan
09-28-2007, 04:01 PM
You trade Garland you immediately give up on 2008. Pitching, pitching, pitching!

YEEESSS!!!

RCWHITESOX
09-28-2007, 04:40 PM
Different situation.

Garcia and Buehrle are(were in the case of Freddy) all-star caliber pitchers, and the Sox wouldn't make a deal without getting a solid return. Same goes for Garland this year. Despite Floyd's semi-weak showing this season, that still was a pretty good return for Garcia, even if he wasn't injured.

In Contreras, the Sox want to drop salary and will take a lesser deal to do so. I don't expect other GMs to offer top prospects, but I do think a deal will get done, maybe for a second or third-tier young outfielder.

Can you say Willy Mo Pena please.

soxinem1
09-28-2007, 09:39 PM
Jon Garland is our right handed version of Mark Buehrle.

Not even close.

Daver
09-28-2007, 10:15 PM
Not even close.

You're right, he might be better.

UserNameBlank
09-28-2007, 10:21 PM
This is what we thought about Buehrle and Garcia, as well. We thought we would get big offers for Buehrle: didn't happen. We also thought we could get a killing for Freddy Garcia: didn't happen.

The free agent market is not equating to the trade market.

I agree with most of what you say in this thread but not about the Garcia trade. We got a project who has had some nice starts in the second half in Floyd as well as a lefty prospect who is climbing the charts as one of the better LHSP prospects in baseball. IMO, I think the most pessimistic yet realistic view you could take on that trade is we got a nasty young LH set up man (Gio) and a bust (Floyd) for a guy who was injured and only made of a handful of starts in his walk year. Good trade for Kenny. Philly got hosed.

I say trade Jon and see what you can get. People are talking about not wanting to rebuild, but whether you like it or not, we are in the midst of rebuilding right now. I think that it is pretty safe to say that there is no way we sign him after 2008. Without trading him, we will essentially be fielding the same team that we did this year so what makes you think that will put us in contention for next year? I would rather lose his 10-15 wins and get a couple of major league ready prospects than to stay the course, finish third or fourth next year and lose him in the offseason.

Totally agee with this.

Different situation.

Garcia and Buehrle are(were in the case of Freddy) all-star caliber pitchers, and the Sox wouldn't make a deal without getting a solid return. Same goes for Garland this year. Despite Floyd's semi-weak showing this season, that still was a pretty good return for Garcia, even if he wasn't injured.

In Contreras, the Sox want to drop salary and will take a lesser deal to do so. I don't expect other GMs to offer top prospects, but I do think a deal will get done, maybe for a second or third-tier young outfielder.

Agree with this as well.

I think someone is going to take Contreras considering the way he has been pitching since coming out of the bullpen. When Kyle Lohse with his history of anger issues and total sucktitude is asking for 4 years/$40mil, suddenly the $20mil owned to Contreras the next two years doesn't look too bad, because at least Contreras has had success in his career. I don't think Jose gets us anything really good unless the Sox eat some of that contract, and I don't see the Sox eating that contract, so I expect to see Jose to ____ for a project, like maybe another Gavin Floyd or something, or a middle reliever like Heath Bell or someone who has had some success this year but has a poor track record. I think Seattle, Baltimore, and San Diego would definitely be interested. The Sox could maybe pull of a swap for a bad contract like Pierre or Furcal from LAD, Winn or Roberts from SF, etc. but I think they just want to dump that salary and not take on another bad deal.