PDA

View Full Version : Bill Hall?


Gammons Peter
10-12-2007, 02:17 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/10/07/new_western_powers_emerge/?page=4

Something brewing?
Article Tools



One deal that might be talked about a lot this offseason is Milwaukee center fielder Bill Hall heading to the White Sox, who need an upgrade. The White Sox might be willing to part with one of their starters (Jon Garland, perhaps) in a package for a center fielder. The Brew Crew definitely needs one more horse, with Ben Sheets simply unable to stay healthy for a full season. With Jacoby Ellsbury in need of a spot, the Red Sox might make Coco Crisp available, and the White Sox might have some interest.


Hall was real good in 05 and 06 but pretty bad last year. We could always move him back to SS

It's Time
10-12-2007, 02:19 PM
Just say no to Bill Hall. He was awful in crunch time for the Crew.

The Immigrant
10-12-2007, 02:55 PM
He hit 35 HRs and 39 2Bs in 2006 while having an OBP > .340. I'd love to have him as our new CF or SS, but we should be able to get him for less than Garland (or if it's for Garland, the Brewers throw in a prospect). He appears to be on the outs in Milwaukee, and they really need pitching help.

gr8mexico
10-12-2007, 03:00 PM
I think its possible to get Hall for Contreras but the Sox will have to add a prospect. If the Sox want the Brewers to pick up all of whats owed to Contreras.

Rocky Soprano
10-12-2007, 03:01 PM
Garland + Contreras for Hall and Sheets. :D:

Foulke You
10-12-2007, 03:59 PM
I think I'd rather have Coco Crisp who is proven in the AL than Bill Hall. Plus, Crisp is already familiar with most of the pitchers in the AL Central from his Indians days. Crisp would also give us some much needed speed. He had 28 stolen bases this year on a Boston team that doesn't like to run very much.

Lip Man 1
10-12-2007, 04:18 PM
If this deal is straight up Hall for Garland...no thanks.

18 game winning / 200 inninng pitchers don't fall of trees like apples.

Perhaps as part of a major deal, five or six players between the two clubs, but not one for one.

Lip

SBSoxFan
10-12-2007, 05:06 PM
I think I'd rather have Coco Crisp who is proven in the AL than Bill Hall. Plus, Crisp is already familiar with most of the pitchers in the AL Central from his Indians days. Crisp would also give us some much needed speed. He had 28 stolen bases this year on a Boston team that doesn't like to run very much.

How about Hall at SS and Crisp in CF?

DumpJerry
10-12-2007, 05:51 PM
Garland + Contreras for Hall and Sheets. :D:
Sheets is too injury prone.

The Sox would be fools to give up Garland.

TDog
10-12-2007, 05:55 PM
While I generally shy away from trade speculation threads because they have little connection to reality, I believe it would be a stronger possibility that the White Sox would go after a good, young inexpensive centerfielder than sign one of the overpriced (obscenely priced) free agents. Hall is a real possibility. I posted this in the current Rowand thread.

I agree with Lip that I wouldn't want to see Hall come straight up for Garland. Obviously, the Brewers aren't going to part with Sheets or Fielder of Braun. But the Brewers and White Sox have been involved in a couple of interesting multi-player trades in the since 1999. The Brewers relieved the Sox of Jaime Navarro. They thought they got the better of the Carlos Lee deal, although it helped the Sox win the World Series.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the Brewers could be interested in Contreras, despite his salary. Add. perhaps, MacDougal and bring back a reliever who may have worn out his welcome in Milwaukee (with the potential of having a good season elsewhere, as is often the case with middle relievers), and you might have the basis for a deal.

Of course, I have no way of knowing if the Sox and Brewers are even talking about Hall.

oeo
10-12-2007, 06:01 PM
Sheets is too injury prone.

The Sox would be fools to give up Garland.

Giving him up would be waiting until the offseason and not re-signing him, or waiting until the middle of next year and then trying to trade him (getting crap in return). Trading him when he still has some value to fill a couple of holes is not 'giving him up.'

FedEx227
10-12-2007, 06:03 PM
I believe I posted a topic last year that we should consider Bill Hall as an option because he can play both CF/SS and has good power. He was pretty bad this year, but really got re-energized once the offense woke up aka when Braun came up.

He strikes out a lot which you don't really like to see, but it wouldn't be anything new for this team. He'd be a decent option, don't know about Garland though that'd be tough to swallow. Possibly Contreras + 2 bullpen arms?

spawn
10-12-2007, 06:07 PM
Sheets is too injury prone.

The Sox would be fools to give up Garland.
I keep wondering why everyone is in such a hurry to see Garland traded. Without him, we have 2 dependable starting pitchers, and we don't know what the bullpen looks like. Thanks but no thanks to Bill Hall.

FarWestChicago
10-12-2007, 06:21 PM
I keep wondering why everyone is in such a hurry to see Garland traded. Without him, we have 2 dependable starting pitchers, and we don't know what the bullpen looks like. Thanks but no thanks to Bill Hall.Who are these people trying to recreate The Big Red Machine? Let's see, in all of the history of baseball only one team with lousy pitching pummeled it's way to a championship. Yeah, that's a great strategy!

I think it's BP/fantasy insanity. But, what the hell do I know...

oeo
10-12-2007, 06:37 PM
I keep wondering why everyone is in such a hurry to see Garland traded. Without him, we have 2 dependable starting pitchers, and we don't know what the bullpen looks like. Thanks but no thanks to Bill Hall.

Because some people are looking beyond 2008. That short-term, 'have to win now' attitude is what got us to 2007. If we're not going to re-sign Garland, we should get something for him while we still can.

FarWestChicago
10-12-2007, 07:00 PM
Because some people are looking beyond 2008. That short-term, 'have to win now' attitude is what got us to 2007. If we're not going to re-sign Garland, we should get something for him while we still can.Or, like most people, suggest we get nothing for him and then blast Kenny afterwards. It must be nice to always be a genius when there is no test of your theories. :D:

oeo
10-12-2007, 07:08 PM
Or, like most people, suggest we get nothing for him and then blast Kenny afterwards. It must be nice to always be a genius when there is no test of your theories. :D:

When it came to trying to trade Buehrle at midseason...was there really anything worthwhile out there? Do you think people will be jumping up and down for a worse pitcher?

If I had it my way, Garland would take a discount and we could keep him here. Somehow I think he feels he's worth what Buehrle is getting, and he's not. If we sign Garland for ~14 million, that's over a third of our payroll in three pitchers. So where do we go to fill our other holes? The one place we have some depth in is pitching, so I think Garland is expendable if he can fill other holes.

spiffie
10-12-2007, 09:47 PM
Who are these people trying to recreate The Big Red Machine? Let's see, in all of the history of baseball only one team with lousy pitching pummeled it's way to a championship. Yeah, that's a great strategy!

I think it's BP/fantasy insanity. But, what the hell do I know...
It's been 15 years since an AL team in the bottom half of the league in ERA won the World Series. The last time a team with a truly bad pitching staff won a World Series was probably 1987, when the Twins won with only one guy having an ERA below 3.95.

Personally, I'd take my chances putting more money into pitching and lock up Garland for the long haul. Be nice to have 3 very dependable pitchers around for the next few years, especially if any of the young kids ever turn out as pitchers.

Grzegorz
10-12-2007, 09:47 PM
Just say no to Bill Hall. He was awful in crunch time for the Crew.

No way I'd do this deal straight up for Garland. As Lip mentioned Garland would be quite a hole to fill.

But don't be so quick to dismiss this possibility; Hall would look good at shortstop.

PalehosePlanet
10-13-2007, 11:08 PM
It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the Brewers could be interested in Contreras, despite his salary. Add. perhaps, MacDougal and bring back a reliever who may have worn out his welcome in Milwaukee (with the potential of having a good season elsewhere, as is often the case with middle relievers), and you might have the basis for a deal.

Of course, I have no way of knowing if the Sox and Brewers are even talking about Hall.

That someone who has worn out his welcome in Milwaukee --- they started booing him in September --- is Derek Turnbow. He has classic closer stuff and the minute he leaves Milwaukee he'll become a stud.