PDA

View Full Version : Garland to the Reds??


otis
11-11-2007, 01:22 PM
There were discussions with th Reds centering around a Garland for Brandon Philips trade. Don't know anything more than that. Just thought I would share.

QCIASOXFAN
11-11-2007, 01:23 PM
I would love this deal.

upperdeckusc
11-11-2007, 01:24 PM
There were discussions with th Reds centering around a Garland for Brandon Philips trade. Don't know anything more than that. Just thought I would share.

where did you hear it from? radio? newspaper? adam dunn??

Rockabilly
11-11-2007, 01:24 PM
There were discussions with th Reds centering around a Garland for Brandon Philips trade. Don't know anything more than that. Just thought I would share.


source

PKalltheway
11-11-2007, 01:37 PM
There were discussions with th Reds centering around a Garland for Brandon Philips trade. Don't know anything more than that. Just thought I would share.
If you're gonna say something like that, please provide a source.

munchman33
11-11-2007, 01:42 PM
How quickly people forget otis.

Guys, otis is in the business. He is the source.

DickAllen72
11-11-2007, 01:44 PM
There were discussions with th Reds centering around a Garland for Brandon Philips trade. Don't know anything more than that. Just thought I would share.
Thanks for the tip, Otis.

Brandon Phillips would be an exciting addition to the Sox. I wonder what that would mean for Danny Richar?

upperdeckusc
11-11-2007, 01:48 PM
Thanks for the tip, Otis.

Brandon Philips would be an exciting addition to the Sox. I wonder what that would mean for Danny Richar?

hopefully open competition between him and uribe for SS, with the loser being the new alex cintron UTIL middle infielder on the bench.

santo=dorf
11-11-2007, 01:49 PM
How quickly people forget otis.

Guys, otis is in the business. He is the source.
No, he claims he knows someone in the Red Sox organization.

Why would the Sox be interested in this guy if they are so high on Richar?

oeo
11-11-2007, 02:02 PM
This would be a confusing move to say the least. Maybe they move Richar back to SS, and give him the year in AAA? Then in 2009, Uribe is gone, Richar in at short, and Phillips at 2B. Or if all works as planned, maybe Richar is brought up by midseason.

It makes for a pretty good, speedy, youthful middle infield. Definitely a lot better than what we've had in the past.

MisterB
11-11-2007, 02:16 PM
Brandon Phillips

:farmer:
"One of my favorite players..."

veeter
11-11-2007, 02:39 PM
I would love this deal.With all due respect, how could you love this deal?

Craig Grebeck
11-11-2007, 02:45 PM
You get a guy who just put up a 30/30 season at the age of 26 at 2B. Personally I'd be ok with it as long as they toss in Norris Hopper...

munchman33
11-11-2007, 02:48 PM
With all due respect, how could you love this deal?

Do you know who Brandon Phillips is? 30/30 2B making league minimum salary don't exactly grow on trees.

JohnTucker0814
11-11-2007, 02:50 PM
Do you know who Brandon Phillips is? 30/30 2B making league minimum salary don't exactly grow on trees.

I wonder why Cincy would think about trading him?

dickallen15
11-11-2007, 02:52 PM
I wonder why Cincy would think about trading him?
Because they would like to pay Jon Garland $12 million for 2008 and watch him flee. This is more garbage.

SoxxoS
11-11-2007, 02:52 PM
otis I always look forward to your threads in the off season - Please keep posting

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 02:52 PM
I wonder why Cincy would think about trading him?
My only guess is because their pitching sucks.

munchman33
11-11-2007, 03:01 PM
I wonder why Cincy would think about trading him?

Because they would like to pay Jon Garland $12 million for 2008 and watch him flee. This is more garbage.


NO. Because Phillips is a year from free agency. And that money is better spent on pitching. The Reds desperately need starting pitching. It's not hard to compete in that division. Add a few starters, and the Reds would.

Gosox1917
11-11-2007, 03:01 PM
My only guess is because their pitching sucks.

That and they probably think Jon Garland will hit 20 homeruns for them, too.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 03:06 PM
That and they probably think Jon Garland will hit 20 homeruns for them, too.
Well he is like what 2-3 with a homer and 2 RBI's against them right?:D:

doublem23
11-11-2007, 03:13 PM
Granted, I these baseless rumors aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but Brandon Phillips? Blegh. We already have one free-swinging middle infielder who can't draw a walk, but at least Uribe is a decent defender.

munchman33
11-11-2007, 03:15 PM
Granted, I these baseless rumors aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but Brandon Phillips? Blegh. We already have one free-swinging middle infielder who can't draw a walk, but at least Uribe is a decent defender.

Phillips might not walk, but he does put the ball in play a lot and steal bases. And while he's batting fifty points higher than Juan, he's also hitting more homeruns than him too.

What makes you say Phillips isn't a decent defender? He's got exceptional range for a 2B.

doublem23
11-11-2007, 03:19 PM
Phillips might not walk, but he does put the ball in play a lot and steal bases. And while he's batting fifty points higher than Juan, he's also hitting more homeruns than him too.

What makes you say Phillips isn't a decent defender? He's got exceptional range for a 2B.

I remember him when he was with the Indians and granted, that was a couple of years ago, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing between his ears except air. No surprise to see he moved to AAA, I mean the NL Central, and suddenly looked like he could play.

Paaaaaaaaass, please.

broker3d
11-11-2007, 03:38 PM
With how desperate teams are for pitching, we better get more than Phillips for Garland.

hi im skot
11-11-2007, 03:41 PM
With how desperate teams are for pitching, we better get more than Phillips for Garland.

So...is your signature for real?

SoxxoS
11-11-2007, 03:42 PM
With how desperate teams are for pitching, we better get more than Phillips for Garland.

Garland isn't that great remember. Good, but not great

oeo
11-11-2007, 03:46 PM
I remember him when he was with the Indians and granted, that was a couple of years ago, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing between his ears except air. No surprise to see he moved to AAA, I mean the NL Central, and suddenly looked like he could play.

Paaaaaaaaass, please.

:?:

So young guys can't improve? Because he was batting .208 a few years ago when he was 22, that means he's garbage? *****...

Tragg
11-11-2007, 04:18 PM
I have no idea about this rumor but teams l need pitching. The Reds have some nice young talent; but their pitching is sparse, so they aren't going to win. We've heard for years about Tampa's young players, but they can't get to 70 wins because of horrendous pitching. Quality starting pitchers don't come cheap. The Sox would know, as they've purchased a lot of it during Williams' tenure all at stiff prices (Ritchey, garcia, Vasquez)

As for Phillips, he's a low obp hitter without much plate discipline. At this point, he's like a lot of other Sox (and Reds) hitters in his lack of patience. He can't lead off because he doesn't get on base.
We just traded our best low-minor prospect for Richar. I'd give Richar a chance.

CHISOXFAN13
11-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Granted, I these baseless rumors aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but Brandon Phillips? Blegh. We already have one free-swinging middle infielder who can't draw a walk, but at least Uribe is a decent defender.

This is just a typical White Sox fan case of overrating their own players and devaluing others. Phillips is a stud, who would bring five tools to a position the White Sox are not good at.

He had eight errors last year. Yeah, that's truly brutal!

doublem23
11-11-2007, 04:29 PM
:?:

So young guys can't improve? Because he was batting .208 a few years ago when he was 22, that means he's garbage? *****...

Pardon me for not wanting to part ways with a pitcher who has tossed over 200 innings four years straight and won almost 60 games in that span for an overrated strike-out machine who didn't miraculously turn his career around until he landed in awful division in one of it's most hitter-friendly ballparks.

Maybe we can get the Pirates to trade us Freddy Sanchez for Mark Buehrle, too!

Chisox003
11-11-2007, 04:42 PM
This is just a typical White Sox fan case of overrating their own players and devaluing others. Phillips is a stud, who would bring five tools to a position the White Sox are not good at.

He had eight errors last year. Yeah, that's truly brutal!
This is just a typical White Sox fan case who still hasn't realized how important starting pitching is.

Floyd/Danks/Contreras/Whoever all in the same rotation? Yeah, that's truly brutal.

SoxxoS
11-11-2007, 04:57 PM
This is just a typical White Sox fan case who still hasn't realized how important starting pitching is.

Floyd/Danks/Contreras/Whoever all in the same rotation? Yeah, that's truly brutal.

I think the team is expecting Egbert and Gonzalez to join the rotation battle as well...the Sox are going to need one or two of the young guys to step up if they want to contend next year...with or without Garland.

doublem23
11-11-2007, 05:02 PM
This is just a typical White Sox fan case of overrating their own players and devaluing others. Phillips is a stud, who would bring five tools to a position the White Sox are not good at.

He had eight errors last year. Yeah, that's truly brutal!

I don't give a **** how many "tools" you have at second base, when you're rotation is:

Mark Buehrle
Javier Vazquez
Jose Contreras - Hopefully he remembers how to pitch
John Danks/Gavin Floyd/Gio Gonzalez/Lance Broadway/Charlie Haeger...
Whatever other crap pitchers we have in our systemThat will get the job done. The Sox already need a starter as it is, but giving one away? :thumbsup:

Jerko
11-11-2007, 05:09 PM
:rolleyes:

Chisox003
11-11-2007, 05:11 PM
I think the team is expecting Egbert and Gonzalez to join the rotation battle as well...the Sox are going to need one or two of the young guys to step up if they want to contend next year...with or without Garland.
So because they "need" at least one of them already, that justifies opening yet another hole in the staff?

Even with Garland, there is two huge question marks in the rotation. Creating another one would be a nightmare. I'll take my chances with Richar at second.

veeter
11-11-2007, 05:52 PM
Do you know who Brandon Phillips is? 30/30 2B making league minimum salary don't exactly grow on trees.Yes, I know who he is. He sucked in the AL, so Cleveland dumped his ass. He's blossomed into a nice player in the NL, I'll give him that. But have we lost sight of the fact that pitching is everything in baseball? I know who he is , but I don't care who you are.

103 screwball
11-11-2007, 05:57 PM
I can see this being very possible especially coming from otis. If the Sox sign Hunter for center and pull off a trade for Cabrera to play left field, they are going to need a leadoff hitter that plays the middle infield and they are going to need move a salary to make room financially.

Hunter is very possible. He has spoken highly of the Sox. He is reportedly KW's number one target. He knows Dye who just got his contract extension to stay where he is happy.

Cabrera is also possible. KW makes bold moves and has some young pitching to deal. Cabrera is friends with Ozzie and the Sox may have insight into how he might think about an extension. Other teams may be worried about his weight gain or work ethic for the price the Marlin's will demand. Ozzie will be confident that he can keep him motivated. Cabrera may tell his GM that he would prefer the Sox and it may sway the deal the Sox way if the other team's offers are practically the same.

Phillips would be the lead off guy and Richar can have another year in AAA. Garland would be the salary that the Sox move.

Phillips
Hunter
Cabrera
Thome
Konerko
Dye
AJ
Crede/Fields (whoever is left after the trades)
Uribe

That should improve the offense.
Thanks for sharing what you hear otis.

doublem23
11-11-2007, 06:13 PM
Phillips
Hunter
Cabrera
Thome
Konerko
Dye
AJ
Crede/Fields (whoever is left after the trades)
Uribe


That's a nice little offense, but I just can't see them winning more than 80 games if you're banking on Contreras to return to pre-2007 form as your 3rd starter and then have two unproven starters to round out your rotation. That's three huge question marks in the pitching staff. You can't be cheap with your pitchers and expect to win.

SoxxoS
11-11-2007, 06:14 PM
So because they "need" at least one of them already, that justifies opening yet another hole in the staff?

Even with Garland, there is two huge question marks in the rotation. Creating another one would be a nightmare. I'll take my chances with Richar at second.

I am not in favor of this particular trade, necessarily, but I am open to trading Garland just b/c I would like to see the Sox get something for him...and he is replaceable.

oeo
11-11-2007, 06:21 PM
I don't give a **** how many "tools" you have at second base, when you're rotation is:
Mark Buehrle
Javier Vazquez
Jose Contreras - Hopefully he remembers how to pitch
John Danks/Gavin Floyd/Gio Gonzalez/Lance Broadway/Charlie Haeger...
Whatever other crap pitchers we have in our systemThat will get the job done. The Sox already need a starter as it is, but giving one away? :thumbsup:


That's why it's going to be hard to build a contender in 2008. Kenny should be looking to improve the team, but build it around 2009. Even if we keep Garland this year, he won't be around in 2009...might as well trade him now when we can get something for him.

I'll use your new favorite smiley too: :thumbsup:

Domeshot17
11-11-2007, 06:50 PM
Garland, a good but nothing special pitcher for a young blossoming super star 2b? I would do it.

I know everyone is having a heart attack but the truth is if we ever expect to win and continue to win we have to have our rookies and our kids step in and pitch. Danks-Gio-Broadway-Floyd-maybe Egbert (although Im still not sold on him) will have to contribute and make the rotation some day. Im farely confident those kids can develop into Garland, who is a good number 3. Gio Im confident will be better then Garland, Danks looks like a future number 3, and Broadway and Floyd still could be number 3 type pitchers.

I will say, its easier to replace a 3rd starter then it is to find a 20 home run 30 stolen base second baseman (Im assuming he loses 10 homers in the AL and in our park vs Cincy)

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 06:56 PM
When will we be ready to give these kids the same oppertunity Buerhle and Garland recieved when they were young?

doublem23
11-11-2007, 07:03 PM
That's why it's going to be hard to build a contender in 2008. Kenny should be looking to improve the team, but build it around 2009. Even if we keep Garland this year, he won't be around in 2009...might as well trade him now when we can get something for him.

I think we have to just agree to disagree and the rift is mostly between where we think the Sox stand. I believe the Sox can build a contender in 2008, and I'm guessing you're ready to scrap plans and build for 2009 and beyond, which is perfectly fine, especially considering the way the team played in 2007. I see no reason the White Sox can't make a run at the post-season in 2008 (which is all you really have to do thanks to the way baseball's play-offs are structured).

munchman33
11-11-2007, 07:25 PM
People. Brandon Phillips sucked with Cleveland four years ago because they rushed him to the big leagues. He's improved every year since then, and has now completely busted out. He's not a hack.

KyWhiSoxFan
11-11-2007, 08:30 PM
Brandon Phillips has a ton of talent who came up with great expectations. For some reason, Cleveland gave up on him way too early. Some players--actually most--don't make a major impact in their first year in the majors. Cleveland has to be sorry they traded him away when they did. If the Sox can get him to solve a 2b problem, I'm all for it.

WhiteSox5187
11-11-2007, 08:48 PM
I'm suspicious of your sources Mr. Otis....

PKalltheway
11-11-2007, 08:51 PM
How quickly people forget otis.

Guys, otis is in the business. He is the source.
Count me in as someone who did not know. I apologize.:redface:
I'm not a really big fan of this trade. We'd lose a solid starter for another hitter. We already have enough hitting as it stands. Plus, we do not know for sure if Garland will re-sign with the Sox or not, but I don't know of the circumstances surrounding his negotiations for a new contract...

jabrch
11-11-2007, 09:08 PM
If we are to send Gar to the Reds, it wouldn't be for Phillips. Encarnacion? Hopper? Votto? Sure!

But Tony Phillips? No way

weareud
11-11-2007, 09:52 PM
If we are to send Gar to the Reds, it wouldn't be for Phillips. Encarnacion? Hopper? Votto? Sure!

But Tony Phillips? No way


Uhhh, he's talking about Brandon Phillips, http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6857 the stud second baseman for the reds who would solve our leadoff hole.

weareud
11-11-2007, 09:52 PM
By the way, Tony Phillips retired in 1999. What the hell were you thinking? :?:

oeo
11-11-2007, 09:53 PM
I think we have to just agree to disagree and the rift is mostly between where we think the Sox stand. I believe the Sox can build a contender in 2008, and I'm guessing you're ready to scrap plans and build for 2009 and beyond, which is perfectly fine, especially considering the way the team played in 2007. I see no reason the White Sox can't make a run at the post-season in 2008 (which is all you really have to do thanks to the way baseball's play-offs are structured).

This team needs a lot of help. And not just LF, CF, middle infield, and the bullpen, but in the rotation as well. Even if we keep Garland, I don't like the idea of Contreras + Danks, or Danks + Gio/Floyd/Masset/Broadway/whoever at the back end of the rotation for a contender. I'm pretty high on Danks, but I honestly don't know what to expect from him yet...Contreras is Contreras, and then we have the ?'s in Gio/Floyd/Masset.

If everything works perfectly, we can make the postseason. Otherwise, it's going to be a stretch unless we bring in a vet to replace Contreras, as well as fill our other holes. I think that's the biggest thing people are missing about this team; the rotation isn't good enough to match up with Cleveland and Detroit.

TheOldRoman
11-11-2007, 10:15 PM
Uhhh, he's talking about Brandon Phillips, http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6857 the stud second baseman for the reds who would solve our leadoff hole.His OBP last year was .331. That is not acceptable from a leadoff hitter. He might be a good player (admittedly, I don't know much about him) and he might really help the Sox, but he does not solve our leadoff problems.

dickallen15
11-11-2007, 10:21 PM
Check out Otis' posts. He has a career writing fiction.

Brian26
11-11-2007, 10:25 PM
I'm suspicious of your sources Mr. Otis....

Otis is the real deal.

I'm not sold yet on Danny Richar, and apparently neither are the White Sox.

Brian26
11-11-2007, 10:28 PM
Check out Otis' posts. He has a career writing fiction.

He's successfully predicted trades here (going back three years), and the ones that didn't transpire have had a certain degree of truthfulness based on other reports that later came out. I have no reason to doubt him.

santo=dorf
11-11-2007, 10:57 PM
He's successfully predicted trades here (going back three years), and the ones that didn't transpire have had a certain degree of truthfulness based on other reports that later came out. I have no reason to doubt him.
He broke ground on Magglio for Nomar, however, his story later turned into a 4 team deal with the Angels and Rangers and included Koch, Konerko, Cotts, and/or Jose Valentine (sic.)

The Sox trying to trade for CC Sabathia in June 2004?
The Sox being close to acquiring Jerry Hairston Jr. or Frank Catalanotto?
Jose Valentine (sic) and Esteban Loaiza for Nomar?

I can't forget the mother of all of them, Frank Thomas for David Ortiz. :rolleyes:

But yes, we should accept the rumor between the Reds and White Sox from a guy who claims to have a Red Sox source even though he has been on quite the cold streak.

Tragg
11-11-2007, 11:22 PM
Garland, a good but nothing special pitcher for a young blossoming super star 2b? I would do it.

Under what definition of superstar is phillips a superstar?
He's Iguchi with a little more power, a lot more base stealing ability and a lot less plate discipline. That low of an OBP with that much power is unusual. But in that regard, he fits right in with Ozzie, Greg and the boys.
And then I read he's a FA in a year? WE can do a lot better for a major league starter that a low OBP 2nd baseman.

Even Richar was on a 18 or so HR pace last year. And my opinion is that Richar has potential and a lot of it. WE paid a high price for him.
Plus we have much bigger needs.

QCIASOXFAN
11-11-2007, 11:25 PM
This is just a typical White Sox fan case of overrating their own players and devaluing others. Phillips is a stud, who would bring five tools to a position the White Sox are not good at.

He had eight errors last year. Yeah, that's truly brutal!
I couldn't have said it better myself. Whats not to like about Phillips? He has noting but upside. I doubt the Reds would even trade him for just Garland.

jabrch
11-11-2007, 11:27 PM
Uhhh, he's talking about Brandon Phillips, http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6857 the stud second baseman for the reds who would solve our leadoff hole.

I know EXACTLY who he is talking about. And Brandon Phillips is no stud.

He's a .262/.307/.419 hitter on his career who is one year away from FA. I wouldn't give Garland, a #2 type pitcher, for that.

jabrch
11-11-2007, 11:35 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself. Whats not to like about Phillips? He has noting but upside. I doubt the Reds would even trade him for just Garland.

Are you kidding? He's 27 years old and about ready to hit FA. He has loads of downside coming off of his first and only decent season.

The Reds would be all over having a guy like Garland at that park. He'd be exactly what they need to partner with Harang at the front half of their rotation.

Brandon Phillips? Are you guys out of your mind?

DumpJerry
11-11-2007, 11:39 PM
I checked Otis' posts. I think he's full of ****. The only trade he reported was that the Sox were interested in, among others at the time, acquiring Freddy Garcia. A near miss all was the Sox trading McCarthy to Seattle.

Most of his posts end with something along the lines of "I'll report more later when I get more information" and then does not post for another 8-10 months.

He claims to have a friend with the Red Sox. And Brian Cashman consults with me before making any player moves.

Hey Otis: Give us more meat on your silly posts! Your batting average is worse than Brian Anderson's!

QCIASOXFAN
11-11-2007, 11:55 PM
Are you kidding? He's 27 years old and about ready to hit FA. He has loads of downside coming off of his first and only decent season.

The Reds would be all over having a guy like Garland at that park. He'd be exactly what they need to partner with Harang at the front half of their rotation.

Brandon Phillips? Are you guys out of your mind?
He basically did noting in Cleveland and then got a fresh start in Cincinnati and as made improvements before exploding this year. Just because he didn't play a lot and had it bad in Cleveland doesn't mean that his last 2 season in Cincinnati are a fluke.

jabrch
11-12-2007, 12:02 AM
He basically did noting in Cleveland and then got a fresh start in Cincinnati and as made improvements before exploding this year. Just because he didn't play a lot and had it bad in Cleveland doesn't mean that his last 2 season in Cincinnati are a fluke.

His average in the 2 years, in a hitters park in the National League, are .282/.327/.457. He doubled his power from 2006 to 2007. Sorry - I don't buy it. He had a great July and August this year .320/.350/.540, but his numbers were fairly pedestrian across the board.

I'm not saying I wouldn't take him - just that I wouldn't give up Garland for him. Jon is a legit #2 SP. To let him go, if we intend on competing, we'd need to get more than that. And if we aren't going to compete this year, then we have no use for Phillips who is a FA after the season.

Man Soo Lee
11-12-2007, 12:35 AM
And if we aren't going to compete this year, then we have no use for Phillips who is a FA after the season.

Phillips has a little more than three years of service time, so he won't be a free agent until after the 2010 season.

weareud
11-12-2007, 12:45 AM
I know EXACTLY who he is talking about. And Brandon Phillips is no stud.

He's a .262/.307/.419 hitter on his career who is one year away from FA. I wouldn't give Garland, a #2 type pitcher, for that.


Yeah because career numbers tell the entire story. :rolleyes: He has improved every year, and was a 30/30 guy last year, which is pretty ****ing rare.

FedEx227
11-12-2007, 01:01 AM
Yeah because career numbers tell the entire story. :rolleyes: He has improved every year, and was a 30/30 guy last year, which is pretty ****ing rare.

I wouldn't quite say he's improved every year. He's only had 2 full major league seasons and the most recent one was better. We have no idea if that's a trend or not, WAAY too early to say "he's improved every year".

With that being said, I like him as an option at SS... if he can play it, which I don't know. Obviously Garland straight up for him would be awful, we'd be getting screwed in that deal. But he's a good base stealer, decent OBP, strikeouts quite a lot though, so probably not your leadoff hitter which is a bit disappointing.

oeo
11-12-2007, 01:12 AM
Are you kidding? He's 27 years old and about ready to hit FA. He has loads of downside coming off of his first and only decent season.

The Reds would be all over having a guy like Garland at that park. He'd be exactly what they need to partner with Harang at the front half of their rotation.

Brandon Phillips? Are you guys out of your mind?

Are you out of your mind? Since when is 30-30 only decent?

I'm not saying I wouldn't take him - just that I wouldn't give up Garland for him. Jon is a legit #2 SP. To let him go, if we intend on competing, we'd need to get more than that. And if we aren't going to compete this year, then we have no use for Phillips who is a FA after the season.

Garland is a #3 starter, tops. In a lot of the very good rotations in the league, he's probably a #4.

With that being said, I like him as an option at SS... if he can play it, which I don't know. Obviously Garland straight up for him would be awful, we'd be getting screwed in that deal. But he's a good base stealer, decent OBP, strikeouts quite a lot though, so probably not your leadoff hitter which is a bit disappointing.

You have to take into account their contract situations. Garland isn't going to bring back two or three studs. He's not as good as everyone around here thinks he is. So we might get a mid-level prospect, as well...unless we plan on paying some of his contract, we're not going to get a ton of talent.

SABRSox
11-12-2007, 01:27 AM
Are you out of your mind? Since when is 30-30 only decent?



Garland is a #3 starter, tops. In a lot of the very good rotations in the league, he's probably a #4.



You have to take into account their contract situations. Garland isn't going to bring back two or three studs. He's not as good as everyone around here thinks he is. So we might get a mid-level prospect, as well...unless we plan on paying some of his contract, we're not going to get a ton of talent.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/08/Stop%20Making%20Sense.jpg

FedEx227
11-12-2007, 01:38 AM
You have to take into account their contract situations. Garland isn't going to bring back two or three studs. He's not as good as everyone around here thinks he is. So we might get a mid-level prospect, as well...unless we plan on paying some of his contract, we're not going to get a ton of talent.

Oh I know. I'm not a pie in the sky Garland should get us 4-5 good prospects type of a guy. I just think Phillips for Garland straight out we'd be getting the worst of it, maybe add in a mid-good level prospect to Phillips and we could talk, only if we can prove Phillips can play a decent SS. No need for another 2B.

CLR01
11-12-2007, 01:47 AM
I checked Otis' posts. I think he's full of ****. The only trade he reported was that the Sox were interested in, among others at the time, acquiring Freddy Garcia. A near miss all was the Sox trading McCarthy to Seattle.

Most of his posts end with something along the lines of "I'll report more later when I get more information" and then does not post for another 8-10 months.

He claims to have a friend with the Red Sox. And Brian Cashman consults with me before making any player moves.

Hey Otis: Give us more meat on your silly posts! Your batting average is worse than Brian Anderson's!

You're wrong, Otis walks on water....

dickallen15
11-12-2007, 07:12 AM
He's successfully predicted trades here (going back three years), and the ones that didn't transpire have had a certain degree of truthfulness based on other reports that later came out. I have no reason to doubt him.
He hasn't predicted 1 trade that has ever happened. He did come up with the Nomar/Magglio thing about a week before it hit the media, but he could easily have heard it on a Boston radio program or something. He did predict Freddy Garcia, but that was out for months and he did say the Sox were going after Sabathia and Sheets first but Garcia was the fallback because they didn't want to give up Reed and Borchard. So he was wrong again. Some other names Otis has bandied about:
Manny Ramirez
Carl Crawford-but the Sox would absolutely not trade McCarthy
Randy Johnson
Barry Zito
Tim Hudson
Mark Mulder
Frank Cantelanatto
Jerry Hairston Jr.
There was the Konerko for Erstad and Washburn trade
There was the White Sox refusing Damon and Ortiz for Frank Thomas
So far every name Otis has mentioned except for Freddy Garcia, which really was no insight considering there were Garcia rumors ever since Ozzie became manager, has never worn a White Sox uniform. Believe his BS if you would like, but remember it is BS.

Gammons Peter
11-12-2007, 08:18 AM
I checked Otis' posts. I think he's full of ****. The only trade he reported was that the Sox were interested in, among others at the time, acquiring Freddy Garcia. A near miss all was the Sox trading McCarthy to Seattle.

Most of his posts end with something along the lines of "I'll report more later when I get more information" and then does not post for another 8-10 months.

He claims to have a friend with the Red Sox. And Brian Cashman consults with me before making any player moves.

Hey Otis: Give us more meat on your silly posts! Your batting average is worse than Brian Anderson's!



Agreed!! His hit and run style is a bunch of BS. He drops a bomb and runs a way, where is he?? He gets everybody all worked up over nothing. If he was legit he would post some follow up.

AWhiteSoxinNJ
11-12-2007, 08:35 AM
I'd take Phillips in a heart beat.

santo=dorf
11-12-2007, 08:51 AM
He hasn't predicted 1 trade that has ever happened. He did come up with the Nomar/Magglio thing about a week before it hit the media, but he could easily have heard it on a Boston radio program or something. He did predict Freddy Garcia, but that was out for months and he did say the Sox were going after Sabathia and Sheets first but Garcia was the fallback because they didn't want to give up Reed and Borchard. So he was wrong again. Some other names Otis has bandied about:
Manny Ramirez
Carl Crawford-but the Sox would absolutely not trade McCarthy
Randy Johnson
Barry Zito
Tim Hudson
Mark Mulder
Frank Cantelanatto
Jerry Hairston Jr.
There was the Konerko for Erstad and Washburn trade
There was the White Sox refusing Damon and Ortiz for Frank Thomas
So far every name Otis has mentioned except for Freddy Garcia, which really was no insight considering there were Garcia rumors ever since Ozzie became manager, has never worn a White Sox uniform. Believe his BS if you would like, but remember it is BS.
:cool:

Specifically another thing that wasn't so surprising about Garcia is that there were rumors of the Sox trading Jose Valentin for him BEFORE the 2004 season.

This might be the least credible rumor yet, and that's saying a lot since I am including the Rowand/Thomas for Damon/Ortiz trade.

jabrch
11-12-2007, 09:28 AM
Are you out of your mind? Since when is 30-30 only decent?

Look at his career numbers and project from there. Now move him out of the easiest division in baseball. Now move him out of a HR hitting paradise. Now look at his obp. Now look at his average. Now look at his career numbers again, including his career slg%. .262/.307/.419

Color me unimpressed with one decent season - and even that is only decent if you focus on HRs and SBs and not other more important numbers that represent a larger portion of his play like avg/obp.



Garland is a #3 starter, tops. In a lot of the very good rotations in the league, he's probably a #4.

That's pure opinion. And in my opinion, it is dead wrong. You are telling me you can name 75ish pitchers you'd rather have than Jon for next year, with salary/contract status not a factor? That's ridiculous.


You have to take into account their contract situations. Garland isn't going to bring back two or three studs. He's not as good as everyone around here thinks he is. So we might get a mid-level prospect, as well...unless we plan on paying some of his contract, we're not going to get a ton of talent.

A #2 starter who makes 12mm? What's wrong with his contract status? If nobody wants to give up more than Brandon Phillips for him, I'd be just fine with Jon in the rotation again.

oeo
11-12-2007, 09:30 AM
Agreed!! His hit and run style is a bunch of BS. He drops a bomb and runs a way, where is he?? He gets everybody all worked up over nothing. If he was legit he would post some follow up.

How do you know what someone would do? :?:

I think this is just another case of everyone thinking a rumor will come to fruition. I'm sure there's a lot of talking that never makes it to the mainstream media...does that mean it doesn't happen?

Not only did he call the Garcia deal, but I believe he also had word of that Maggs for Nomar deal before it came out in the mainstream media. Just because they talked, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

A. Cavatica
11-12-2007, 09:33 AM
By the way, Tony Phillips retired in 1999. What the hell were you thinking? :?:

:KW

"There are two? Yeah, we'll still do the deal."

oeo
11-12-2007, 09:39 AM
Look at his career numbers and project from there. Now move him out of the easiest division in baseball. Now move him out of a HR hitting paradise. Now look at his obp. Now look at his average. Now look at his career numbers again, including his career slg%. .262/.307/.419

Oh, *****. He's 26, his career numbers don't consist of much before 2006. And why are we going to start this, 'because he's in the NL Central, he must suck' crap? Derrek Lee is in the NL Central...he must not be good. Pujols...not as good as he looks. Can you please give me that amazing formula that translates NL Central stats to AL Central ones? It must be key in evaluating talent.

Phillips was 26 this past year, it's not out-of-the-ordinary for someone to break into the league in their mid-to-late 20s.

Color me unimpressed with one decent season - and even that is only decent if you focus on HRs and SBs and not other more important numbers that represent a larger portion of his play like avg/obp.Color me unimpressed with your ability to distinguish between a very good season and a decent one. You want to talk about decent seasons? Let's talk about Garland and how his entire career has been decent.

That's pure opinion. And in my opinion, it is dead wrong. You are telling me you can name 75ish pitchers you'd rather have than Jon for next year, with salary/contract status not a factor? That's ridiculous.It's not opinion, it's a fact. He's the #3 starter in our rotation, and it's not even that good. Look at some of the better rotations in baseball...he doesn't even lick #2.

A #2 starter who makes 12mm? What's wrong with his contract status? If nobody wants to give up more than Brandon Phillips for him, I'd be just fine with Jon in the rotation again.Yeah, remember when he signed that contract? After, without a doubt, the best year of his career (and it continues to be). Jose Contreras is also making $10 million a year, that doesn't mean he's worth that money.

What's wrong with his contract status? If we want someone to take on that salary, we're not going to get as much in return.

And you're just like everyone else...too afraid to move him, when you know you're not going to bring him back.

dickallen15
11-12-2007, 10:01 AM
How do you know what someone would do? :?:

I think this is just another case of everyone thinking a rumor will come to fruition. I'm sure there's a lot of talking that never makes it to the mainstream media...does that mean it doesn't happen?

Not only did he call the Garcia deal, but I believe he also had word of that Maggs for Nomar deal before it came out in the mainstream media. Just because they talked, doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Maybe if 1 time he had a scoop that actually happened it would make a difference. How can you give him credit for getting Garcia right? Garcia was rumored to come to the White Sox for months. He said Garcia was the third option behind Sabathia, yeah the Indians would have gladly traded him to the White Sox and Ben Sheets. I'm sure the Brewers were dying to rid themselves of their young ace under their control for several more season. Furthermore, he said Garcia was the fallback plan and they would trade for him if they didn't have to give up Jeremy Reed or Joe Borchard. If you think he called this trade, you are sadly mistaken.

Dan Mega
11-12-2007, 10:11 AM
Maybe if 1 time he had a scoop that actually happened it would make a difference. How can you give him credit for getting Garcia right? Garcia was rumored to come to the White Sox for months. He said Garcia was the third option behind Sabathia, yeah the Indians would have gladly traded him to the White Sox and Ben Sheets. I'm sure the Brewers were dying to rid themselves of their young ace under their control for several more season. Furthermore, he said Garcia was the fallback plan and they would trade for him if they didn't have to give up Jeremy Reed or Joe Borchard. If you think he called this trade, you are sadly mistaken.

Exactly. And the Seattle media was floating this rumor out there before he "called the trade". You've been had.

kjhanson
11-12-2007, 10:20 AM
Paul Konerko has grounded into a double play every 26 at-bats in his career. Brandon Phillips has grounded into a double play every 28 at-bats in his career.

Phillips grounded into 5 more double plays than Konerko last year.

If Brandon were acquired, one of the biggest questions would revolve around where he hits in the order. As a #2 hitter last year (238 PAs), his OBP was only .309. When leading off innings, however, he hit .321/.358/.471. Despite this, he's only hit first 11 times in his career. He hit second and fourth a ton last year, which meant that Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn were providing his protection. I would chalk up his big year to that more than anything else. In 2006, on the other hand, he primarily hit 6th or 7th, and had a solid, but unspectacular season.

I think someone mentioned earlier that he plays in a good hitting ballpark. His OPS on the road was 10 points higher than at home (.821 vs. .811).

Jerko
11-12-2007, 11:44 AM
Check out Otis' posts. He has a career writing fiction.

I agree. He's batting about .030 in his rumors, and IIRC his "source" works for the Red Sox; Otis himself is not "in the business". And 99% of his Red Sox rumors were wrong too. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

DumpJerry
11-12-2007, 11:51 AM
The bottom line is I just don't see Kenny trading a SP for a position player, not matter who that position player is.

Garland is probably the best athlete on the team. Kenny is not going to get rid of him. We're seeing the same song and dance about his contract that we saw last year about Buehrle's contract. Garland is staying and that's a good thing.

skottyj242
11-12-2007, 12:06 PM
Garland would turn into a home run hitting machine in that ball park.

chisoxmike
11-12-2007, 12:11 PM
I checked Otis' posts. I think he's full of ****. The only trade he reported was that the Sox were interested in, among others at the time, acquiring Freddy Garcia. A near miss all was the Sox trading McCarthy to Seattle.

Most of his posts end with something along the lines of "I'll report more later when I get more information" and then does not post for another 8-10 months.

He claims to have a friend with the Red Sox. And Brian Cashman consults with me before making any player moves.

Hey Otis: Give us more meat on your silly posts! Your batting average is worse than Brian Anderson's!

:thumbsup:

Tragg
11-12-2007, 12:15 PM
You have to take into account their contract situations. Garland isn't going to bring back two or three studs. He's not as good as everyone around here thinks he is. So we might get a mid-level prospect, as well...unless we plan on paying some of his contract, we're not going to get a ton of talent.
What did the Astros give for Jason Jennings? A lot more than a mid prospect
Is that what we gave for Garcia, a comparable pitcher to JG with a comparable contract? A "mid level" prospect? We have a starter and 2 prospects 1 of whom was top (although counterfeit, Seattle didn't know that).
What about for Ritchey, another comparable pitcher. What did we give up?
As it is, Phillips has power for last year, can steal bases, but he has a serious OBP problem, which has about a 0% chance of improving with Walker and Guillen coaching him. And his contract's up.

munchman33
11-12-2007, 12:29 PM
Look at his career numbers and project from there.

I'm just going to assume you don't know who Brandon Phillips is, how young he is, and that he's really only played three full seasons, one bad rookie year, one pretty good year and one spectacular year. Seriously, you're embarassing yourself.

Domeshot17
11-12-2007, 12:46 PM
The bottom line is I just don't see Kenny trading a SP for a position player, not matter who that position player is.

Garland is probably the best athlete on the team. Kenny is not going to get rid of him. We're seeing the same song and dance about his contract that we saw last year about Buehrle's contract. Garland is staying and that's a good thing.

The difference is Buehrle is our ace, Garland our 3.

I will say I do believe in this game you need an ace, 2 good starters, 1 above average and then an average guy for your 5 man. Garland is good, but he isn't by any means great. Do I like him at 3 more years and 9 million a year more? Sure do. 4 years 40 mil is still decent, 4-48 no thanks and 4-56 Buehrle got would be a slap in the face to Burls.

hi im skot
11-12-2007, 12:48 PM
The difference is Buehrle is our ace, Garland our 3.

Meaning that Vazquez is our number two?

Personally, I have to give Garland the number two spot...unless Javy pitches in 2008 like he did in 2007.

Still, it's a nice "problem" to have.

jabrch
11-12-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm just going to assume you don't know who Brandon Phillips is,

I know who he is.

how young he is,

He's 27 years old. You are asking me if I know how young he is?

and that he's really only played three full seasons

You don't think I see that?

one bad rookie year, one pretty good year and one spectacular year.

I don't see how his second year is "pretty good". .276/.324/.427 is not "pretty good" in the context of a discussion for trading a SP who is a near lock for 200 IP and an ERA between 4 and 4.5 in the AL in a touogh park.

He's had ONE good season. PERIOD

Seriously, you're embarassing yourself.

You are the one calling him "young" and calling his .276/.324/.427 season "pretty good", and proposing trading a starter who is a lock for 200 IP and a serviceable ERA - and you are saying I am embarssing myself? Really? You can't be serious...

upperdeckusc
11-12-2007, 12:51 PM
The difference is Buehrle is our ace, Garland our 3.

I will say I do believe in this game you need an ace, 2 good starters, 1 above average and then an average guy for your 5 man. Garland is good, but he isn't by any means great. Do I like him at 3 more years and 9 million a year more? Sure do. 4 years 40 mil is still decent, 4-48 no thanks and 4-56 Buehrle got would be a slap in the face to Burls.

how many teams realistically fall into this category? i bet you can count them on 1 hand.
and whats the difference between a good starter and an above average starter? :?:

chisoxmike
11-12-2007, 12:54 PM
So, let's just say the Sox trade Garland for whoever. Then what? Who magically comes in the rotation. Don't give me the Gio/Egbert/Broadway/DLS pile on our AAA pitchers crap.

Seriously, why can't the Sox pay Garland? You keep a rotation of Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez around for a while with the emergence of Danks and a serviceable guy to be our 5th starter that's pretty solid. Get a halfway decent bullpen on this team and we can contend.

People on here devalue Garland so much. I'd like to see what happens when/if the Sox trade Garland. What kind of staff we run out there. I wouldn't be too convinced that we could win with Buehrle/Vazquez/Danks and whoever to fill out the last two spots.

Domeshot17
11-12-2007, 01:00 PM
how many teams realistically fall into this category? i bet you can count them on 1 hand.
and whats the difference between a good starter and an above average starter? :?:

Good see Javy Vazquez, a Guy who can give you a sub 4 era, might not match up well with a number 1, but is on that next tier.

Above Average is somewhere in the Garland neighborhood. Keeps you in the game, doesn't dominate, but isn't a push over. Can give you 190-210 innings a year, mid 4 era, isn't a 1 and you don't want him to be your 2 but you can live with him as your 3 and love him as your 4.

I know we are so hyped on Garland, but the 1 year we won it all, he was the number 4. We had our Ace (Buehrle) our 2 GOOD pitchers (Freddy-Jose) our number 4 was still above average (Garland) and our number 5 was good enough (Duque-Brandon combo).

If Garland could keep his era under 4 and have a better K:BB ratio, he could be in that GOOD category, but hes a better 4 than a 3, and not a very good 2. So I can live with him as our 3 because Javy seems to have turned that light bulb on. And Garland is still young enough you hope he takes that stride from above average to good, but not at 14 million a year.

upperdeckusc
11-12-2007, 01:03 PM
Good see Javy Vazquez, a Guy who can give you a sub 4 era, might not match up well with a number 1, but is on that next tier.

Above Average is somewhere in the Garland neighborhood. Keeps you in the game, doesn't dominate, but isn't a push over. Can give you 190-210 innings a year, mid 4 era, isn't a 1 and you don't want him to be your 2 but you can live with him as your 3 and love him as your 4.

I know we are so hyped on Garland, but the 1 year we won it all, he was the number 4. We had our Ace (Buehrle) our 2 GOOD pitchers (Freddy-Jose) our number 4 was still above average (Garland) and our number 5 was good enough (Duque-Brandon combo).

If Garland could keep his era under 4 and have a better K:BB ratio, he could be in that GOOD category, but hes a better 4 than a 3, and not a very good 2. So I can live with him as our 3 because Javy seems to have turned that light bulb on. And Garland is still young enough you hope he takes that stride from above average to good, but not at 14 million a year.

uhhhh...........got it :D:
i agree on garland and what he's worth. its just gonna come down to whether or not he feels he's worth 10mil/yr over 4-5 yrs and can get that as a free agent. if he's willing to do another 3yr27 mil deal, i'd love him to stay, but i dont think he wants that. in that case, we need to trade him for some bullpen/ss help

chisoxmike
11-12-2007, 01:04 PM
Good see Javy Vazquez, a Guy who can give you a sub 4 era, might not match up well with a number 1, but is on that next tier.

Above Average is somewhere in the Garland neighborhood. Keeps you in the game, doesn't dominate, but isn't a push over. Can give you 190-210 innings a year, mid 4 era, isn't a 1 and you don't want him to be your 2 but you can live with him as your 3 and love him as your 4.

I know we are so hyped on Garland, but the 1 year we won it all, he was the number 4. We had our Ace (Buehrle) our 2 GOOD pitchers (Freddy-Jose) our number 4 was still above average (Garland) and our number 5 was good enough (Duque-Brandon combo).

If Garland could keep his era under 4 and have a better K:BB ratio, he could be in that GOOD category, but hes a better 4 than a 3, and not a very good 2. So I can live with him as our 3 because Javy seems to have turned that light bulb on. And Garland is still young enough you hope he takes that stride from above average to good, but not at 14 million a year.

As long as guys get guys out, I don't care where they are in the rotation.

Domeshot17
11-12-2007, 01:08 PM
So, let's just say the Sox trade Garland for whoever. Then what? Who magically comes in the rotation. Don't give me the Gio/Egbert/Broadway/DLS pile on our AAA pitchers crap.

Seriously, why can't the Sox pay Garland? You keep a rotation of Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez around for a while with the emergence of Danks and a serviceable guy to be our 5th starter that's pretty solid. Get a halfway decent bullpen on this team and we can contend.

People on here devalue Garland so much. I'd like to see what happens when/if the Sox trade Garland. What kind of staff we run out there. I wouldn't be too convinced that we could win with Buehrle/Vazquez/Danks and whoever to fill out the last two spots.


If we are going to continue to win we MUST get contributions from our rookie/young pitchers.

The Yankees got carried by theirs, Boston has Lester and Clay, Detroit is built on home grown pitching, The twins make a living on it, The Cubs (hate to say it) got more from their kids like Hill and Marshall than they did with Marquis. Indians same thing.

Not counting the cubs (just saying how they do well with home grown pitching), the teams that are consistently good and will continue to be good grow pitching. The hitting comes and goes, you can always trade for hitting, but pitching you have to develop to survive.

By all accounts we SUCK at developing hitting, but have a lot of pitching potential. We have to start seeing how good it can be. Im not saying we get rid of everyone, but every year we need to work a new kid in. Floyd looked good finishing the year strong, Danks looked great early until he hit the rookie wall, Gio could be the best pitcher on the team, better then Buehrle and Vaz and Garland. Broadway looks like a capable 4 or 5.

If you ask me, you trade Contreras this year and go into season with 2 of Danks Floyd Broadway and Gio.

THEN you let Garland walk, get your 2 top picks for me as a Type A/B pitcher, and filter in ANOTHER pitching prospect.

Foulke You
11-12-2007, 01:17 PM
He's had ONE good season. PERIOD

What some people are also forgetting is that Brandon Phillips one good season came in the NL Comedy Central which is by far the worst division in baseball with some the biggest cream puff pitching staffs.

Domeshot17
11-12-2007, 01:19 PM
What some people are also forgetting is that Brandon Phillips one good season came in the NL Comedy Central which is by far the worst division in baseball with some the biggest cream puff pitching staffs.

Does Pujols also actually suck because he plays in the NL Central?

kjhanson
11-12-2007, 01:47 PM
Does Pujols also actually suck because he plays in the NL Central?

.332/.420/.620
.262/.306/.419

There's quite a divide between Pujols and Brandon Phillips. Here are his career splits against the division:

CHC: .225/.283/.351
STL: .240/.301/.413
PIT: .303/.312/.492
MIL: .380/.423/.577
HOU .274/.319/.509

His career BA against any team not named the Brewers is .251. His career OBP against teams not named the Brewers? .294!

Not many 28 year-old starters who have won double-digit games for 6 years in a row get traded very often. Talent-wise, it's probably a fair deal, but Phillips isn't as desirable with Richar waiting in the wings. If Brandon still played SS, this debate would probably take a different turn. But he doesn't play there anymore for a reason.

skottyj242
11-12-2007, 02:02 PM
As long as guys get guys out, I don't care where they are in the rotation.

Exactly. What does what "number" you are in the rotation matter after the first couple of weeks or so?

munchman33
11-12-2007, 02:03 PM
I don't see how his second year is "pretty good". .276/.324/.427 is not "pretty good" in the context of a discussion for trading a SP who is a near lock for 200 IP and an ERA between 4 and 4.5 in the AL in a touogh park.

He's had ONE good season. PERIOD


You are the one calling him "young" and calling his .276/.324/.427 season "pretty good", and proposing trading a starter who is a lock for 200 IP and a serviceable ERA - and you are saying I am embarssing myself? Really? You can't be serious...

200 IP of 4.50 era is just as desirable as that line. When it comes down to it, Garland has had one outstanding year in his entire career. 2005. He's been an average league starter since, just like he was before 2005. Brandon Phillips, who's been improving every year, just had an outstanding season. And at his age and the way he's been improving, there's no reason to think he won't improve even more. Now throw Garland's income and pending free agency into the equation, and it should be obvious which of these players has more value.

I'm not saying I don't value Jon or his pitching. He's a good pitcher. He's worth what he's paid. But he's definately a 3 or 4 guy. And he shouldn't be untouchable for a young, upcoming talent like Brandon Phillips. To say he is...that's pretty ridiculous.

delben91
11-12-2007, 02:06 PM
You're wrong, Otis walks on water....

I heard that otis is actually Ersty's twin brother.

I'm certainly not going to mess with otis. :gulp:

CLR01
11-12-2007, 02:31 PM
I heard that otis is actually Ersty's twin brother.

I'm certainly not going to mess with otis. :gulp:


I have the anti-christ on my side, he doesn't scare me.

Foulke You
11-12-2007, 03:47 PM
Does Pujols also actually suck because he plays in the NL Central?
I never said Pujols sucks. However, I do think his numbers would take a small hit playing in the AL, however that is a topic for another thread.

Phillips already played in the AL and didn't perform which is why the Tribe sent "The Franchise" packing. ("The Franchise" is Brandon's nickname for himself, he even has it stitched to his mitt) Phillips has a rep of being a selfish and dumb player and I seem to recall a huge rift between him and Wedge which led to his departure from Cleveland. If you are trading a #3 starter like Garland, you'd better be getting more from Cincy than just Phillips in my opinion.

santo=dorf
11-12-2007, 04:08 PM
You are the one calling him "young" and calling his .276/.324/.427 season "pretty good", and proposing trading a starter who is a lock for 200 IP and a serviceable ERA - and you are saying I am embarssing myself? Really? You can't be serious...
How is it you don't consider a 25-26 year old Brandon Phillips putting up a .276/.324/.427 line for a season "pretty good," yet you say a 26 year old Jerry Owens putting up a .267/.324 (you won't mention his woeful SLG%) line had a "fine" season? :rolleyes: :rolling:

Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

ChiSoxFan35
11-12-2007, 04:35 PM
Geez, the way you guys argue things you act like you're in the front office or your view will have an effect on what happens. It's good to get your views, opinions, and even debate going, but geez, no one can even be proven right or wrong, don't take it so personal/be so offensive if someone disagrees, so quick to be defensive and protect self image on the internet, sheesh

ChiSoxFan35
11-12-2007, 04:38 PM
Also, I don't know this otis man, but I don't see how it can be proved either way, it's not like GMs don't throw a ton of names and ideas around

DumpJerry
11-12-2007, 04:42 PM
Geez, the way you guys argue things you act like you're in the front office or your view will have an effect on what happens. It's good to get your views, opinions, and even debate going, but geez, no one can even be proven right or wrong, don't take it so personal/be so offensive if someone disagrees, so quick to be defensive and protect self image on the internet, sheesh

Also, I don't know this otis man, but I don't see how it can be proved either way, it's not like GMs don't throw a ton of names and ideas around
You're new here, aren't you?:welcome:
Welcome to the off-season at WSI! We allow/encourage debate, as long as there are no personal attacks or name calling. If you give facts to back up your arguments, you may go forth with your opinion (which is worth as much as anyone else's).

We wouldn't be White Sox fans if we did not argue about everything from the players to which is the best hot dog stand at Comiskey!

spiffie
11-12-2007, 04:55 PM
You're new here, aren't you?:welcome:
Welcome to the off-season at WSI! We allow/encourage debate, as long as there are no personal attacks or name calling. If you give facts to back up your arguments, you may go forth with your opinion (which is worth as much as anyone else's).

We wouldn't be White Sox fans if we did not argue about everything from the players to which is the best hot dog stand at Comiskey!
The answer to that is the Kosher stand by section 110.

Foulke You
11-12-2007, 04:56 PM
You're new here, aren't you?:welcome:
Welcome to the off-season at WSI! We allow/encourage debate, as long as there are no personal attacks or name calling. If you give facts to back up your arguments, you may go forth with your opinion (which is worth as much as anyone else's).

We wouldn't be White Sox fans if we did not argue about everything from the players to which is the best hot dog stand at Comiskey!
How true, Dump. White Sox fans are some of the most opinionated, biased, angry, cynical, and surly bunch of baseball fans on Earth and I for one am proud to be one.:cool:

This Brandon Phillips debate is pretty tame compared to some venomous threads that have appeared in the past. I highly recommend to you, Chisoxfan35 to use the search engine and find some of the threads of the past on WSI. I'd name the Keith Foulke for Billy Koch/Neal Cotts trade, the Miguel Olivo/Jeremy Reed for Freddy Garcia trade, the almost 3 way swap of Maggs to BoSox/Nomar to ChiSox deal that never happened, as well as any of the numerous "Fire Jerry Manual" threads that appeared here on WSI. You want venom and debate? Those threads are a great place to start.:tongue:

jabrch
11-12-2007, 04:58 PM
And he shouldn't be untouchable

I'd trade Gar in a heartbeat for the right package - this just isn't it. This is .262/.306/.419

for a young,

27 - Not Young

upcoming talent like Brandon Phillips.


.262/.306/.419 Whoopie!!!!!


You can easily get those numbers from someone else for a lot less than the cost of replacing Jon Garland.

The market sets the price of guys like this. Look what we paid for Freddy. Look what we got for Freddy? Jennings to Houston? None of these deals would be for as little as if we got .262/.306/.419 back for him.

.262/.306/.419 is a wonderful player for sure. His HRs in GABP would surely carry over to the AL to USCF. But the problem is that you then need to go out and sign Carlos Silva for 5/60 or something stupid like that unless you plan on going with a back of the rotation with Jose, Danks and then one more from the farm.

I just don't get what the fascination is with .262/.306/.419. I'd trade Gar in a heartbeat - just not for .262/.306/.419

kjhanson
11-12-2007, 05:24 PM
I just don't get what the fascination is with .262/.306/.419. I'd trade Gar in a heartbeat - just not for .262/.306/.419

Read my post from before jab; this is Mr. .251/.294/.399 when he doesn't get to play the Brewers 19 times a year. The fascination is even more absurd in that sense.

It's the fascination with rare milestones that make people fall in love with certain players. In the playoffs everyone was envying Chris Young because he was near 30/30, this time it's Brandon Phillips and his 30/30. Surely, it's one hell of an accomplishment, but there's a lot more to winning baseball than reaching a milestone. Phillips had a phenomenal year last year, and he very well may turn in another 30/30 if he's protected by the likes of Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Jr. But you can't justify trading a 28 year-old starter for someone who would play the position of someone whom the White Sox are supposed to be selling us on (Richar). What do you do with him if this deal were made? (Here's the sure-fire response: trade him, Broadway and Sweeney to the Marlins for Dontrelle Willis - sorry but that's unreasonable).

All in all though, this is an Otis rumor, so there's no truth to it what-so-ever. It brought out some interesting debate, and showed how much some people really want to give up on Garland (46 wins in the past three years!). Mind you that in Garland's first five losses in 2007, the Sox scored a total of 7 runs (1.4 rpg). And in his last three losses, the Sox scored a combined 3 runs. Garland's ERA in those 8 starts (remember, they were all losses)? 3.69. That was more than a full run better than the league average of 4.74.

Domeshot17
11-12-2007, 05:42 PM
Read my post from before jab; this is Mr. .251/.294/.399 when he doesn't get to play the Brewers 19 times a year. The fascination is even more absurd in that sense.

It's the fascination with rare milestones that make people fall in love with certain players. In the playoffs everyone was envying Chris Young because he was near 30/30, this time it's Brandon Phillips and his 30/30. Surely, it's one hell of an accomplishment, but there's a lot more to winning baseball than reaching a milestone. Phillips had a phenomenal year last year, and he very well may turn in another 30/30 if he's protected by the likes of Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Jr. But you can't justify trading a 28 year-old starter for someone who would play the position of someone whom the White Sox are supposed to be selling us on (Richar). What do you do with him if this deal were made? (Here's the sure-fire response: trade him, Broadway and Sweeney to the Marlins for Dontrelle Willis - sorry but that's unreasonable).

All in all though, this is an Otis rumor, so there's no truth to it what-so-ever. It brought out some interesting debate, and showed how much some people really want to give up on Garland (46 wins in the past three years!). Mind you that in Garland's first five losses in 2007, the Sox scored a total of 7 runs (1.4 rpg). And in his last three losses, the Sox scored a combined 3 runs. Garland's ERA in those 8 starts (remember, they were all losses)? 3.69. That was more than a full run better than the league average of 4.74.

Wins=bad stat to measure pitchers by. Clemens won what like 12 games a few years ago with an era around 2.00, did he have a worse year then Garland winning 18 with an era around 4 and a half in 2006?

League average you said was 4.74, Garland was 4.23, so about half a run better. His whip also was slightly better than the league average, which makes Garland what he is, a pitcher who is above average but not a front line starter.

We should have jumped on the Houston offer last year, we will be lucky to get a similiar deal now

I just love how people try to play both sides here. Say we shouldn't judge his losses because he doesn't get enough run support, but when you say he got a lot of his wins in 2006 because of above average run support its shot down.

FedEx227
11-12-2007, 05:49 PM
This Brandon Phillips debate is pretty tame compared to some venomous threads that have appeared in the past. I highly recommend to you, Chisoxfan35 to use the search engine and find some of the threads of the past on WSI. I'd name the Keith Foulke for Billy Koch/Neal Cotts trade, the Miguel Olivo/Jeremy Reed for Freddy Garcia trade, the almost 3 way swap of Maggs to BoSox/Nomar to ChiSox deal that never happened, as well as any of the numerous "Fire Jerry Manual" threads that appeared here on WSI. You want venom and debate? Those threads are a great place to start.:tongue:

The Brian Anderson and/or Darin Erstad hate-fest threads are also a good place to look for recent heated debates.

:tongue:

Daver
11-12-2007, 05:53 PM
I just love how people try to play both sides here. Say we shouldn't judge his losses because he doesn't get enough run support, but when you say he got a lot of his wins in 2006 because of above average run support its shot down.

I don't give a rat's ass about wins, ERA, WHIP, run support, or any of the other stat crap, because I know this, he is going to go out every fifth day and give you a better than average chance to win, he is going to make your bullpens life easier because he eats innings, and he is not spending extended amounts of time on the DL, because he doesn't get hurt. I'd give that guy 13 mil a year to be in my rotation without even hesitating.

Foulke You
11-12-2007, 05:53 PM
The Brian Anderson and/or Darin Erstad hate-fest threads are also a good place to look for recent heated debates.

:tongue:
Yes, also excellent reference points FedEx227! Don't forget any of the dozen or so "I miss Aaron Rowand" threads in recent years or the Royce Clayton hate fests of yester yore. Ah, the memories.:D:

Tragg
11-12-2007, 06:20 PM
This board ahlso has a fine tradition of ridiculously hyperbolic comments about players on other teams that the Sox might get if they trade their unworth players: from Brandon Phillips is "magnificent" or a "superstar" to the "elite" AJ Burnett and many in between.

All in fun.

thomas35forever
11-12-2007, 06:34 PM
I went over the MLBtraderumors.com and one guy writes that Garland might have to be moved if the Sox are going to afford Hunter. Any thoughts on that? I guess if we sign Garland to a Buehrle-type deal, then Hunter is out of the question.

upperdeckusc
11-12-2007, 06:39 PM
I went over the MLBtraderumors.com and one guy writes that Garland might have to be moved if the Sox are going to afford Hunter. Any thoughts on that? I guess if we sign Garland to a Buehrle-type deal, then Hunter is out of the question.

hunter or no hunter, garland should not make buehrle-like money.

Brian26
11-12-2007, 06:48 PM
hunter or no hunter, garland should not make buehrle-like money.

Buehrle shouldn't make Buehrle-like money either. He should make MORE. Don't forget that MB signed for less to stay here.

cburns
11-12-2007, 07:13 PM
I like Brandon Phillips and I think he has the potential to be at least a perennial 20/20 guy. At the same time I shudder to imagine what the Sox rotation would become if Garland is traded. The bullpen was terrible last year, and if Garland wasn't there it would have been infinitely worse. It already looks like the Sox will have the 5th starter problem again if Danks doesn't emerge, we don't need a 4th and 5th starter problem.

munchman33
11-12-2007, 07:31 PM
I'd trade Gar in a heartbeat for the right package - this just isn't it. This is .262/.306/.419



27 - Not Young




.262/.306/.419 Whoopie!!!!!


You can easily get those numbers from someone else for a lot less than the cost of replacing Jon Garland.

The market sets the price of guys like this. Look what we paid for Freddy. Look what we got for Freddy? Jennings to Houston? None of these deals would be for as little as if we got .262/.306/.419 back for him.

.262/.306/.419 is a wonderful player for sure. His HRs in GABP would surely carry over to the AL to USCF. But the problem is that you then need to go out and sign Carlos Silva for 5/60 or something stupid like that unless you plan on going with a back of the rotation with Jose, Danks and then one more from the farm.

I just don't get what the fascination is with .262/.306/.419. I'd trade Gar in a heartbeat - just not for .262/.306/.419

.262/.306/.419 ???

You can't be serious. You're using his career numbers to state your case? You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about Brandon Phillips other than a cursory look at his statistics.

The guy played a whole season in 2003. 2003. Played 112 ballgames. In that year, he hit .208. Terrible. And went back to the minors because he was very not ready.

He spent 2004 and 2005 in the minors. To learn how to play. And you know what? He did. In the last two years, which is what really counts, he's posted a .282/.321/.459. Last year alone, he did .288/.331/.485.

I can really only come up with two things. One is that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Brandon Phillips. Or two is that you're trying to manipulate the statistics by including the 400 or so at bats he took almost five years ago as a rookie rushed to the majors, as he's certainly not the same player today, as he's clearly shown over the last two seasons in almost 1200 at bats.

Daver
11-12-2007, 07:35 PM
.262/.306/.419 ???

You can't be serious. You're using his career numbers to state your case? You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about Brandon Phillips other than a cursory look at his statistics.

The guy played a whole season in 2003. 2003. Played 112 ballgames. In that year, he hit .208. Terrible. And went back to the minors because he was very not ready.

He spent 2004 and 2005 in the minors. To learn how to play. And you know what? He did. In the last two years, which is what really counts, he's posted a .282/.321/.. Last year alone, he did .288/.331/.419.

I can really only come up with two things. One is that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Brandon Phillips. Or two is that you're trying to manipulate the statistics by including the 400 or so at bats he took almost five years ago as a rookie rushed to the majors, as he's certainly not the same player today, as he's clearly shown over the last two seasons in almost 1200 at bats.

Can he pitch?

If not, I wouldn't trade a MLB proven starting pitcher for him, unless his name is Alex Rodriguez.

munchman33
11-12-2007, 07:41 PM
Can he pitch?

If not, I wouldn't trade a MLB proven starting pitcher for him, unless his name is Alex Rodriguez.

If Kenny doesn't think we can resign Garland, and thinks we can sign this guy, it makes sense.

Everything I've read leads me to believe Kenny thinks Garland and Contreras are both expendable, and that Floyd and one of the kids can fill in. Can't say I agree persay, but that seems like the indication we're getting.

Daver
11-12-2007, 07:45 PM
If Kenny doesn't think we can resign Garland, and thinks we can sign this guy, it makes sense.

Everything I've read leads me to believe Kenny thinks Garland and Contreras are both expendable, and that Floyd and one of the kids can fill in. Can't say I agree persay, but that seems like the indication we're getting.

Relying on the newspaper is not going to give you a clue what Kenny thinks, it's been tried. He is on record that he will not trade starting pitching without getting pitching in return.

santo=dorf
11-12-2007, 08:12 PM
Relying on the newspaper is not going to give you a clue what Kenny thinks, it's been tried. He is on record that he will not trade starting pitching without getting pitching in return.
I'll take his word on that, but last offseason he said he wouldn't trade starting pitching if the return package didn't benefit the major league team for the season.

FarWestChicago
11-12-2007, 08:14 PM
I'll take his word on that, but last offseason he said he wouldn't trade starting pitching if the return package didn't benefit the major league team for the season.Did Floyd pitch more than Freddy? It had to be close. :redneck

oeo
11-12-2007, 08:15 PM
Buehrle shouldn't make Buehrle-like money either. He should make MORE. Don't forget that MB signed for less to stay here.

Then Garland should take a discount, too, if he wants to stay. Garland shouldn't make the same amount of money as another starter in our rotation that has been head and shoulders better than him throughout their careers.

Domeshot17
11-12-2007, 08:18 PM
Then Garland should take a discount, too, if he wants to stay. Garland shouldn't make the same amount of money as another starter in our rotation that has been head and shoulders better than him throughout their careers.

Buehrle and PK set the trend, if you want to stay, take the cut, otherwise make more somewhere else. Garland on FAIR value is worth maybe 11, so here I could see a 4/40 deal.

To give Garland MORE than Buehrle would be a huge slap in Burls face

A. Cavatica
11-12-2007, 08:44 PM
Did Floyd pitch more than Freddy? It had to be close. :redneck

Wow, I just looked their seasons up.

Pitcher A was 1-5, 5.27 ERA, 1.486 WHIP over 70 innings pitched.

Pitcher B was 1-5, 5.90 ERA, 1.603 WHIP over 58 innings pitched.

Pitcher B was Freddy, so I guess Kenny kept his promise after all.

SoxxoS
11-12-2007, 08:59 PM
I checked Otis' posts. I think he's full of ****. The only trade he reported was that the Sox were interested in, among others at the time, acquiring Freddy Garcia. A near miss all was the Sox trading McCarthy to Seattle.

Most of his posts end with something along the lines of "I'll report more later when I get more information" and then does not post for another 8-10 months.

He claims to have a friend with the Red Sox. And Brian Cashman consults with me before making any player moves.

Hey Otis: Give us more meat on your silly posts! Your batting average is worse than Brian Anderson's!

Considering how many trades are talked about and fall through - Only one is needed to prove his worth over 99% of the other posters at WSI and their "baggage claim" rumors -

Him posting SOMETHING that might be relevant at least gives possible meaningful discussion to an offseason that is ALL rumors until the press conference.

He proved his worth once and that should be enough.

FarWestChicago
11-12-2007, 09:17 PM
Wow, I just looked their seasons up.

Pitcher A was 1-5, 5.27 ERA, 1.486 WHIP over 70 innings pitched.

Pitcher B was 1-5, 5.90 ERA, 1.603 WHIP over 58 innings pitched.

Pitcher B was Freddy, so I guess Kenny kept his promise after all.That's pretty sad. :smile:

jabrch
11-12-2007, 11:12 PM
Can he pitch?

If not, I wouldn't trade a MLB proven starting pitcher for him, unless his name is Alex Rodriguez.

But he hit 30 HRs!!!!!! And he stole 30 bases!!!!!

(never mind a mediocre career batting average and obp - he has HRs and SBs...)

jabrch
11-12-2007, 11:18 PM
Did Floyd pitch more than Freddy? It had to be close. :redneck

Floyd and Gio or Freddy....hmmmm

munchman33
11-13-2007, 09:31 AM
But he hit 30 HRs!!!!!! And he stole 30 bases!!!!!

(never mind a mediocre career batting average and obp - he has HRs and SBs...)

That .288 he hit last year would have been what on our team? First?

jabrch
11-13-2007, 09:43 AM
That .288 he hit last year would have been what on our team? First?

Which makes it a nice year - but based ono a .288 batting average, when it was well above his career averages, doesn't warrant trading a proven veteran starting pitcher.

KW will not trade a Jon Garland type pitcher for .262/.306/.419 in the real world. When he traded Freddy, he got MUCH more. When he traded for Freddy, he gave up much more.

.262/.306/.419 is a nice ballplayer - but you don't give up a front of the rotation guy, a lock for 200+ IP, a 4-4.5 ERA, etc. for .262/.306/.419. You just don't do it.

DumpJerry
11-13-2007, 09:46 AM
KW will not trade a Jon Garland type pitcher for .262/.306/.419 in the real world. When he traded Freddy, he got MUCH more. When he traded for Freddy, he gave up much more.
What did he give up? A pitcher who was hurting and wound up out for most of the season? We all knew something was up with Freddy in '06 when his velocity plummeted.

jabrch
11-13-2007, 09:49 AM
What did he give up? A pitcher who was hurting and wound up out for most of the season? We all knew something was up with Freddy in '06 when his velocity plummeted.

When he trade FOR Freddy, he gave up a starting C, our top OF prospect and a viable lower level IF prospect.

When he dealt Freddy, he got a top tier pitching prospect and another SP prospect for a guy who, as you said, we all had reason to believe wasn't "right"

Thus my point - Garland gets you much more than .262/.306/.419.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 10:01 AM
Which makes it a nice year - but based ono a .288 batting average, when it was well above his career averages, doesn't warrant trading a proven veteran starting pitcher.

KW will not trade a Jon Garland type pitcher for .262/.306/.419 in the real world. When he traded Freddy, he got MUCH more. When he traded for Freddy, he gave up much more.

.262/.306/.419 is a nice ballplayer - but you don't give up a front of the rotation guy, a lock for 200+ IP, a 4-4.5 ERA, etc. for .262/.306/.419. You just don't do it.

Well, he's only had TWO ****IN' SEASONS since spending two years entirely in the minor leagues. In those seasons, he's hitting .282. Not .262. Get it through your head that he isn't the same player you last saw five years ago before he spent years in the minors. If you want to argue .282 is bad, we can do that. But if you say .262 one more time I'm gonna put you on my block list for being a troll.


When he trade FOR Freddy, he gave up a starting C, our top OF prospect and a viable lower level IF prospect.

When he dealt Freddy, he got a top tier pitching prospect and another SP prospect for a guy who, as you said, we all had reason to believe wasn't "right"

Thus my point - Garland gets you much more than .262/.306/.419.

Gio is not a top tier prospect. We only have one of those in our system, and it ain't Gio.

voodoochile
11-13-2007, 10:08 AM
Well, he's only had TWO ****IN' SEASONS since spending two years entirely in the minor leagues. In those seasons, he's hitting .282. Not .262. Get it through your head that he isn't the same player you last saw five years ago before he spent years in the minors. If you want to argue .282 is bad, we can do that. But if you say .262 one more time I'm gonna put you on my block list for being a troll.




Gio is not a top tier prospect. We only have one of those in our system, and it ain't Gio.

I underlined the part of your post that is against board policy. Feel free to disagree with people's posts, but don't announce who you are blocking/ignoring it's poor form and has been used as a form of intimidation by long standing posters to shout down newbies in the past. We simply don't allow it.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 10:12 AM
I underlined the part of your post that is against board policy. Feel free to disagree with people's posts, but don't announce who you are blocking/ignoring it's poor form and has been used as a form of intimidation by long standing posters to shout down newbies in the past. We simply don't allow it.

No problem voodoo.

DumpJerry
11-13-2007, 10:15 AM
When he trade FOR Freddy, he gave up a starting C, our top OF prospect and a viable lower level IF prospect.

When he dealt Freddy, he got a top tier pitching prospect and another SP prospect for a guy who, as you said, we all had reason to believe wasn't "right"

Thus my point - Garland gets you much more than .262/.306/.419.
My bad. I thought you were referring to the Garcia to Philly trade.

In hindsight, I have no problem with what Kenny sent to Seattle for Freddy. Olivo was not the greatest Backstop in the league and if we had held onto him, we would have had a lot of free time in October '05.

We did give up a high prospect OF for Freddy, but I think it was worth it since Freddy did come through on some big games for us in '05 and '06.

jabrch
11-13-2007, 10:24 AM
My bad. I thought you were referring to the Garcia to Philly trade.

In hindsight, I have no problem with what Kenny sent to Seattle for Freddy. Olivo was not the greatest Backstop in the league and if we had held onto him, we would have had a lot of free time in October '05.

We did give up a high prospect OF for Freddy, but I think it was worth it since Freddy did come through on some big games for us in '05 and '06.


I agree Dump. I think both of those were good deals. We traded Reed and Olivo to get what we really needed - another veteran SP who could go out there every day, take the ball, and give us a shot at winning. It worked. Reed happened to be a bust, and Olivo went backwards after we traded him, but the point is we gave up our best OF prospect. If Cinci wants to give up their best OF prospect, I am more than willing to talk about it. But .262/.306/.419 is not their best OF prospect. And when we sent Freddy to Philly, we still got more value than .262/.306/.419.

I'll trade Garland for the market value of a 200+ IP, 4-4.5 ERA (in the AL in USCF) type guy. If the Reds are interested, they have a bunch of players who I'd be VERY interested in.

otis
11-19-2007, 06:48 PM
Jon Garland traded straight up for a middle infielder ?? Never saw that one coming!!

Tragg
11-19-2007, 07:16 PM
Thus my point - Garland gets you much more than .262/.306/.419.

How does .273, .321, .403 sound to you? And only 33 years old and in a contract year to boot. What a haul for the game's worst offensive team.

DumpJerry
11-19-2007, 07:20 PM
Otis, looks like you struck out again.:rolleyes:

otis
11-19-2007, 08:04 PM
All I said was that the Sox were in trade discussions with the Reds that centered around acquiring a top of the order 2B/SS for Garland. One week later they trade JG for a top of the order SS. Not sure I would call it a strikeout, but whatever. Like I said before, take it for what it is worth. I will keep posting if I hear anything else.

ilsox7
11-19-2007, 08:05 PM
All I said was that the Sox were in trade discussions with the Reds that centered around acquiring a top of the order 2B/SS for Garland. One week later they trade JG for a top of the order SS. Not sure I would call it a strikeout, but whatever. Like I said before, take it for what it is worth. I will keep posting if I hear anything else.

Please keep posting.

SoxxoS
11-19-2007, 08:09 PM
All I said was that the Sox were in trade discussions with the Reds that centered around acquiring a top of the order 2B/SS for Garland. One week later they trade JG for a top of the order SS. Not sure I would call it a strikeout, but whatever. Like I said before, take it for what it is worth. I will keep posting if I hear anything else.

Ignore the naysayers and please keep posting. I look forward to your threads as they have more credibility than an other rumors I hear.

DickAllen72
11-19-2007, 09:23 PM
All I said was that the Sox were in trade discussions with the Reds that centered around acquiring a top of the order 2B/SS for Garland. One week later they trade JG for a top of the order SS. Not sure I would call it a strikeout, but whatever. Like I said before, take it for what it is worth. I will keep posting if I hear anything else.
Thank you!

mantis1212
11-19-2007, 09:27 PM
All I said was that the Sox were in trade discussions with the Reds that centered around acquiring a top of the order 2B/SS for Garland. One week later they trade JG for a top of the order SS. Not sure I would call it a strikeout, but whatever. Like I said before, take it for what it is worth. I will keep posting if I hear anything else.

Please do - you've proven your credibility again, not sure how people can deny that...

CLR01
11-19-2007, 09:42 PM
Otis, looks like you struck out again.:rolleyes:

Bite your tongue. This will go down in history as one of the all-time great Otis predictions. I mean he successfully predicted the Sox were shopping a guy they have been shopping for the last year. Find me someone else who could have done that. Eat your heart out Peter Gammons.

Jerko
11-19-2007, 09:51 PM
O utrageous
T rades
I nevitably
S quashed

He had the team wrong, he had the position wrong, then comes on here and brags. :rolling: Wow, nobody knew the Sox needed a middle infielder and have been shopping Garland for months. I hear the Sox are going to trade Crede and Uribe for a pitcher, or maybe an outfielder, and they might also sign a free agent. I'll let you know if I hear more. I busted Otis years ago after posting that the Sox were after Guardado AFTER somebody else posted the same rumor a week earlier. But those of you who take his **** as gospel, knock yourselves out. :rolleyes::roflmao:

Jerko
11-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Please do - you've proven your credibility again, not sure how people can deny that...

I can deny it because he's never right. I hope he tells us who we're gonna get for Crede and Uribe. Please let us know Otis.

dickallen15
11-19-2007, 09:55 PM
Ignore the naysayers and please keep posting. I look forward to your threads as they have more credibility than an other rumors I hear.
Credibility? Wouldn't one have to come to fruition for that? The guy is so full of it.

Brian26
11-19-2007, 09:55 PM
All I said was that the Sox were in trade discussions with the Reds that centered around acquiring a top of the order 2B/SS for Garland. One week later they trade JG for a top of the order SS. Not sure I would call it a strikeout, but whatever. Like I said before, take it for what it is worth. I will keep posting if I hear anything else.

Otis is the real deal.

Just remember, Kenny won't trade starting pitching unless he gets starting pitching in return.

CLR01
11-19-2007, 09:55 PM
I can deny it because he's never right. I hope he tells us who we're gonna get for Crede and Uribe. Please let us know Otis.

I wonder if he knows which players the Sox are looking at for CF...I am dying to know.

dickallen15
11-19-2007, 09:58 PM
I can deny it because he's never right. I hope he tells us who we're gonna get for Crede and Uribe. Please let us know Otis.

I don't know what's more sad, that he comes here to brag when he's wrong, or that people actually believe anything he posts? Otis who did Cleveland what for Sabathia?

TornLabrum
11-19-2007, 10:24 PM
I was in the airport last week and I heard Kenny Williams say something on his cell phone that I'll let you know about when the Sox announce the deal.

santo=dorf
11-22-2007, 10:55 PM
How does .273, .321, .403 sound to you? And only 33 years old and in a contract year to boot. What a haul for the game's worst offensive team.
I'd love to see jabrch's response to that.
Jon Garland traded straight up for a middle infielder ?? Never saw that one coming!!
Why stop there? The Angels and Reds boh wear white jerseys with red lettering.

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 11:22 AM
I don't know what's more sad, that he comes here to brag when he's wrong, or that people actually believe anything he posts?Otis bragging when he was wrong is amusing. Those who hang on his every word are hysterically funny. :D:

jabrch
11-23-2007, 11:52 AM
Otis bragging when he was wrong is amusing. Those who hang on his every word are hysterically funny. :D:


Yeah - funny like Louie Anderson...

dickallen15
11-23-2007, 01:00 PM
With all the moves KW does make, how come Otis never has any of that info?

santo=dorf
11-23-2007, 01:43 PM
With all the moves KW does make, how come Otis never has any of that info?
Where was Otis on the David Riske trade? How come we heard nothing from him when the Bellhorn-Wunsch deal fell through?

Dan Mega
11-23-2007, 02:10 PM
Otis bragging when he was wrong is amusing. Those who hang on his every word are hysterically funny. :D:

I'm just trying to figure out when Otis supposedly proved his credibility.

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 02:15 PM
I'm just trying to figure out when Otis supposedly proved his credibility.You got me. :dunno:

jabrch
11-23-2007, 02:59 PM
I'm just trying to figure out when Otis supposedly proved his credibility.

He predicted the sun would rise today...and it did.

Dan Mega
11-23-2007, 03:20 PM
Do away with Whats The Score!

DumpJerry
11-23-2007, 10:10 PM
I think Otis' buddy who works for the Red Sox is the hot dog vendor on the Third Base Line.

The dude (Otis, not the WSI poster) has as much credibility as Bruce Levine.

Edit: I expect Otis to next tell us that most, if not all, MLB teams are looking to improve their pitching, fielding and hitting next year. That would be going out on the limb!

Brian26
11-24-2007, 11:29 AM
I'm just trying to figure out when Otis supposedly proved his credibility.

You got me. :dunno:

I know I'm one of the only guys that defends Otis here, but didn't he call the entire scenario between the Red Sox,White Sox & Rangers after the 2003 season when there were talks of a three-way trade involving Magglio & Jose Valentin to Texas, A-Rod to Boston, and Nomar to the White Sox? At the time it hadn't been reported anywhere else and was pretty shocking news. A few days later, it came out that this rumor was very substantiated, so much so that the Yankees swooped into the hunt and worked out the Soriano deal for A-Rod.

I still give Otis full credit on calling the Freddy Garcia deal in 2004, even though he posted about it a couple of weeks before the deal was made. There were a number of pitchers available that year at the deadline, but Otis said KW was targeting Garcia for a package centered around Reed or Borchard.

Here's the main reason I tend to believe he might be legitimate. Anybody could sign up to a White Sox message board and claim to have a source close to the KW or White Sox. How many people, however, are going to take the time to sign up to a White Sox message board and claim to have an inside source with the Red Sox? I believe he signed around the time of that Red Sox/White Sox/Rangers rumor. Couple that with his infrequent postings (he's not abusing his claims), and I think there's reasonable evidence that he's legit.

With all of this in mind, I also remember back to the summer of '03 when that young lady named "HSC" posted here and dropped a couple of bombshells about Kenny being fired by Eddie Einhorn because he dabbling too much in Manuel's business on the bench (rumors of calling to the dugout on his cell phone, etc). People ran HSC off the board, and then some credible sources backed up what she had said.

Next, you're going to tell me Santa doesn't exist. :D:

Dan Mega
11-24-2007, 11:31 AM
I still give Otis full credit on calling the Freddy Garcia deal in 2004, even though he posted about it a couple of weeks before the deal was made. There were a number of pitchers available that year at the deadline, but Otis said KW was targeting Garcia for a package centered around Reed or Borchard.

From my understanding that rumor was already floating around blogland and the inner realms of ESPN.com, as well as being tossed around as an idea on Seattle radio.

I wasn't here at the time, but I still think its awfully fishy.

Paulwny
11-24-2007, 11:39 AM
I know I'm one of the only guys that defends Otis here, but didn't he call the entire scenario between the Red Sox,White Sox & Rangers after the 2003 season when there were talks of a three-way trade involving Magglio & Jose Valentin to Texas, A-Rod to Boston, and Nomar to the White Sox? At the time it hadn't been reported anywhere else and was pretty shocking news. A few days later, it came out that this rumor was very substantiated, so much so that the Yankees swooped into the hunt and worked out the Soriano deal for A-Rod.




I believe this was part of it:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=27237&highlight=magglio+arod

Brian26
11-24-2007, 11:41 AM
I wasn't here at the time, but I still think its awfully fishy.

I remember his rumors about both the Garcia trade and the A-Rod/Mags/Nomar rumor as being big news at the time.

You can go back and read the posts now, but it's hard to compare those rumors to what was known at the time from other sources around the net.

Brian26
11-24-2007, 11:46 AM
I believe this was part of it:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=27237&highlight=magglio+arod

That one of the threads I remember.

Even in late 2003, he is trying to defend the idea of the Red Sox trading Nomar. That seemed incomprehensible back then to Red Sox fans, and it ended up happening six months later.

DumpJerry
11-24-2007, 12:58 PM
http://www.pugs.nl/images/milo-and-otis2.jpg

dickallen15
11-24-2007, 01:13 PM
I remember his rumors about both the Garcia trade and the A-Rod/Mags/Nomar rumor as being big news at the time.

You can go back and read the posts now, but it's hard to compare those rumors to what was known at the time from other sources around the net.
There were rumors of Garcia joining the White Sox ever since Ozzie became manager. If you go to Otis' posts you will see he said the Sox were after Sabathia and Sheets, but would settle for Garcia if they didn't have to give up Borchard and Reed, so he was wrong again. Considering all the deals Williams has made in the past 4 or 5 years, if Otis truely has insight, why is it in all his posts of deals being close or discussed, that Garcia is the only guy he has mentioned to ever wear a White Sox uniform? If he truely had insight, wouldn't he have been able to come up with at least one or 2 of the deals Kenny actually made? Garland gets traded to the Angels for a SS, and the guy wants credit for it because he said Garland to the Reds for Phillips was being discussed. He is full of it.

DumpJerry
11-24-2007, 01:24 PM
Oh,
This
Is
Silly

getonbckthr
11-24-2007, 01:58 PM
There were rumors of Garcia joining the White Sox ever since Ozzie became manager. If you go to Otis' posts you will see he said the Sox were after Sabathia and Sheets, but would settle for Garcia if they didn't have to give up Borchard and Reed, so he was wrong again. Considering all the deals Williams has made in the past 4 or 5 years, if Otis truely has insight, why is it in all his posts of deals being close or discussed, that Garcia is the only guy he has mentioned to ever wear a White Sox uniform? If he truely had insight, wouldn't he have been able to come up with at least one or 2 of the deals Kenny actually made? Garland gets traded to the Angels for a SS, and the guy wants credit for it because he said Garland to the Reds for Phillips was being discussed. He is full of it.
How do you know that possibly Anaheim heard rumblings about this and figured they should try to get in on it.

dickallen15
11-24-2007, 03:17 PM
How do you know that possibly Anaheim heard rumblings about this and figured they should try to get in on it.
If Otis knows so much how come he had nothing on the Cabrera trade? How come he's had nothing on any trade the White Sox have ever made? Giving him credit for getting Garcia right is crazy. When Ozzie came to the White Sox Freddy to Chicago was rumored almost from day 1. Otis' posts said Sabathia or Sheets, but then Garcia as long as they didn't give up Reed or Borchard, so he was wrong again. He had nothing about Thome, or Vazquez or Dye or Erstad or Iguchi or AJP or Carl Everett. If he truly was as connected as he claimed, something would have been correct these past several years.

I can't wait until his next bull**** post. Its a guarantee it will be followed by all the "thanks for the info Otis", "Otis is the real deal" posts. Its actually pretty funny.

Brian26
11-24-2007, 03:36 PM
Great stuff from Otis, December 16, 2003:

Here is what is happening:

1. The Manny/Arod deal will happen. Boston may need to overpay for Arod because of the Nomar fiasco. The Dodgers or the White Sox could be a third team involved in this trade.
2. They will trade Nomar and receiving Maggs in return is their first choice; however, due to circumstances KW has a lot of work to do to consumate a trade.
3. KW could trade Magglio and some prospects for Nomar and Johnny Damon today, but he is unwilling to take on additional salary. He is trying to be creative in ways to dump salary (Konerko) to make this deal happen. Boston will move Damon's contract if they get Arod. The addition of Jose Valentin to Boston and a pitching prospect to Texas could get this done.
4. Peter Angelos & Keith Foulke have made things very difficult for KW. Baltimore's signing of Tejada has inflated Nomar's price. KW initially wanted to sign Nomar to a contract extension before making a trade. Nomar's new price could prevent this trade from happening. Foulke's signing with Boston eliminated Koch as an option for the Red Sox and they do not want Konerko.
5. Boston is hoping that the rivalry between KW and Dan Evans drives up the price for Nomar.
6. Most interesting of all is that my source thinks that the Sox may have agreed on a minor leaguer to trade to the Expos for Carl Everett if this all goes down.

Otis predicts the Sox re-aquisition of Crazy Carl six months before it happened. He also predicts the Dodgers interest in Nomar a year before they signed him as a free agent (Winter 2004).

Brian26
11-24-2007, 03:48 PM
Otis' posts said Sabathia or Sheets, but then Garcia as long as they didn't give up Reed or Borchard, so he was wrong again.

Wrong.
Otis from June 7, 2004:


I stand by my previous statement of the White Sox wishlist being Ben Sheets, CC Sabathia, and Freddy Garcia. Since the last post, nothing much has changed. My source has told me to expect a trade sooner than later. He said that the Sox haven't promoted Reed or Borchard because he expects one of them to go in a trade. As he put it, with Magglio's impending free agency the White Sox need to bring up one of those guys to see if either would be a viable replacement. It doesn't make baseball sense to leave these guys in the minors when the baseball world thinks both are major league ready. Bringing either up now has more of a chance to hurt their value than increase it. If either were to be promoted and stuggle their value is shot

Brian26
11-24-2007, 03:49 PM
He had nothing about Thome, or Vazquez or Dye or Erstad or Iguchi or AJP or Carl Everett. If he truly was as connected as he claimed, something would have been correct these past several years.

Wrong. Otis has said several times that his source is from Boston, so anything involving the White Sox is educative speculation and second hand info unless the Carmines are involved.

santo=dorf
11-24-2007, 04:23 PM
I still give Otis full credit on calling the Freddy Garcia deal in 2004, even though he posted about it a couple of weeks before the deal was made. There were a number of pitchers available that year at the deadline, but Otis said KW was targeting Garcia for a package centered around Reed or Borchard.

Wrong.

He said Garcia was the third option behind Sabathia (we even had an Indians fan register here just to tell us there was zero chance of it happening,) and Sheets, and the White Sox were going to go after Garcia if they didn't want to give up Borchard and/or Reed.

There is no inside info to that at all. Reed was all hype and was nearly traded for Contreras before Kevin Brown went down. There was a rumor in the 2003-2004 offseason that the Mariners were interested in sending Garcia (who was almost non-tendered) for Jose Valentin. Go search back and see how many people were expecting at some point Garcia to join the Sox because he was getting ready to marry Ozzie's wife's niece.

I assume Otis will "call it" when Miguel Cabrera signs with the Sox 3 years from now?

santo=dorf
11-24-2007, 04:24 PM
Wrong. Otis has said several times that his source is from Boston, so anything involving the White Sox is educative speculation and second hand info unless the Carmines are involved.
So where was he on the Riske deal? Remember the Bellhorn-Wunsch deal that fell apart? Where was he this past summer with the Dye and Buehrle rumors with them going to Boston?

Wrong.
Otis from June 7, 2004:
Here was his first post on the subject:
Haven't posted in a while, but figured people would want to hear this. From what I have been told, the White Sox have targeted their top pitching acquisitions. Their wishlist of top available players include Ben Sheets & CC Sabathia. Unfortunately, the asking price is more than what the Sox would like to part with at this time. According to my source, talks have occurred with both teams and either of these players could be had right now. Ben Sheets is the guy they want to have, but acquiring him would cost Jeremy Reed & Neal Cotts. The price for Sabathia would be a package that included Joe Borchard. Supposedly KW is trying to acquire a pitcher without giving up Reed, Borchard, or anyone from the major league roster. If they decide not to give up either of the top OF prospects, expect Freddy Garcia to be acquired in July. The Sox believe they can beat anyones price without including JB or JR to the Mariners. Also, Ozzie is good friends with Freddy and would prefer him. The most interesting part is that Reinsdorf has approved a modest payroll increase.
-Big whiff on the first one as Olivo was on the major league roster and Reed was traded.
-Reed was sent to the Mariners and there were rumors that the Mariners were interested in Borchard.
-Nothing new as people knew about Garcia's relationship with Ozzie before this.
-Nothing new to that last one as JR has always said if the team was winning they would bump the payroll to continue being competitive.

Brian26
11-24-2007, 04:50 PM
Here was his first post on the subject:

-Big whiff on the first one as Olivo was on the major league roster and Reed was traded.
-Reed was sent to the Mariners and there were rumors that the Mariners were interested in Borchard.
-Nothing new as people knew about Garcia's relationship with Ozzie before this.
-Nothing new to that last one as JR has always said if the team was winning they would bump the payroll to continue being competitive.

This poster self-admittedly has a Red Sox source. Whether you believe that or not, I don't think anybody would expect him to have information on every single detail of a trade weeks before it happens. Who knows what the Mariners and White Sox discussed in the final hours of negotiations before the deal was made? I'm sure a whirlwind of ideas could come up over the phone and behind closed doors in the finals hours before a deal. I would never expect this information to be leaked.

The point is that he named three pitchers the Sox were after and said the basis of the deal would involve/center around Reed or Borchard, who they weren't going to call up before the deadline in case they failed miserably (which Borchard ended up doing, incidentally).

I don't think Kenny Williams could tell you all the details of big trade the day before it happens, let alone a Boston source. Take the info for what its worth.

What I'm seeing in this debate is that the people who are trying to disprove Otis are working a lot harder and throwing out more vague arguments than the people who agree that he might be legitimate.

Jurr
11-24-2007, 04:58 PM
Pretty interesting stuff. He seems to have a better read on things than any of the journalists do.

Brian26
11-24-2007, 05:13 PM
So where was he on the Riske deal? Remember the Bellhorn-Wunsch deal that fell apart? Where was he this past summer with the Dye and Buehrle rumors with them going to Boston?

I have no idea. Maybe he was on vacation before the Riske deal happened in 2006 or just forgot about WSI this summer. I don't think he's obligated to show up here.

santo=dorf
11-24-2007, 07:53 PM
I have no idea. Maybe he was on vacation before the Riske deal happened in 2006 or just forgot about WSI this summer. I don't think he's obligated to show up here.
Yes, but with his ego I'm surprised he didn't. I wonder if he thinks he should still be considered "WSI's poster of the year?"

Christ, he bumped a thread AFTER he was wrong.:kukoo:

FarWestChicago
11-24-2007, 09:21 PM
Christ, he bumped a thread AFTER he was wrong.:kukoo:Yep. And his fans clamor for more. :rolling:

TornLabrum
11-24-2007, 11:10 PM
Around here if you get the name of one player right that eventually gets traded somewhere, you're considered to have almost superhuman insight.

Jjav829
11-25-2007, 11:06 AM
Around here if you get the name of one player right that eventually gets traded somewhere, you're considered to have almost superhuman insight.

Sources tell me that Miguel Cabrera is likely on the move. I'm hearing the Angels are a strong possibility, though don't count out the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Athletics, Cubs, Brewers, Giants, Rockies, Pirates, Devil Rays, Yankees again, or the Marlins themselves.

I also hear Johan Santana will either sign a contract with the Twins this offseason, or be traded either this offseason or sometime before the trade deadline. Look for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers to show interest.

Also, don't be surprised if any of the following players are traded this offseason: Carl Crawford, Jason Bay, Ken Griffey Jr. (Aside: I had a dream two nights ago where he was traded to the Rockies...take that FWIW...nothing), Kobe Bryant, Jon Garland, Orlando Cabrera, Juan Uribe, Joe Crede, Cecil Fielder, Derek Anderson and Johnny Damon.

dickallen15
11-25-2007, 11:48 AM
Great stuff from Otis, December 16, 2003:



Otis predicts the Sox re-aquisition of Crazy Carl six months before it happened. He also predicts the Dodgers interest in Nomar a year before they signed him as a free agent (Winter 2004).
I hope for your bank account's sake, you don't take a lot of calls from telemarketers and don't watch infomercials. The Expos wouldn't have worked out a trade with Everett before he ever played a game, and wasn't there a regime change in LA from the time of Otis the phony's post and when Nomar signed?

Brian26
11-25-2007, 11:59 AM
One thing that's not helping Otis' cause is his choice not to defend himself here. I see he was just reading this thread and decided not to respond.

TornLabrum
11-25-2007, 12:00 PM
Sources tell me that Miguel Cabrera is likely on the move. I'm hearing the Angels are a strong possibility, though don't count out the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Athletics, Cubs, Brewers, Giants, Rockies, Pirates, Devil Rays, Yankees again, or the Marlins themselves.

I also hear Johan Santana will either sign a contract with the Twins this offseason, or be traded either this offseason or sometime before the trade deadline. Look for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers to show interest.

Also, don't be surprised if any of the following players are traded this offseason: Carl Crawford, Jason Bay, Ken Griffey Jr. (Aside: I had a dream two nights ago where he was traded to the Rockies...take that FWIW...nothing), Kobe Bryant, Jon Garland, Orlando Cabrera, Juan Uribe, Joe Crede, Cecil Fielder, Derek Anderson and Johnny Damon.

Genius! Pure genius! :redneck

Jerko
11-25-2007, 12:18 PM
One thing that's not helping Otis' cause is his choice not to defend himself here. I see he was just reading this thread and decided not to respond.

He was about to respond but his source was calling him on the cell.... He'll have a new rumor for us soon.

fusillirob1983
11-25-2007, 12:38 PM
He was about to respond but his source was calling him on the cell.... He'll have a new rumor for us soon.

Either that or his bag came down the chute and he didn't want to keep his ride waiting.

dickallen15
11-25-2007, 03:34 PM
One thing that's not helping Otis' cause is his choice not to defend himself here. I see he was just reading this thread and decided not to respond.
He's probably enjoying the fact there's a 14 page thread on something he made up.

FedEx227
11-25-2007, 03:54 PM
Around here if you get the name of one player right that eventually gets traded somewhere, you're considered to have almost superhuman insight.

I called Torii Hunter signing with a team other than the Twins like...7 months ago.

Give me a medal.

Dan Mega
11-25-2007, 07:32 PM
I got a call from Kenny earlier today to inform me that the Sox will be playing players next year.

dickallen15
11-28-2007, 08:22 AM
He was about to respond but his source was calling him on the cell.... He'll have a new rumor for us soon.
I wonder if he'll bring back this gem from July 2005:

From what I have heard, the Sox have been scouting Eddie Guardado. They are looking to get an end of game bullpen guy who wouldn't demand to be the exclusive closer. I also heard that Jenks might be showcased for any such trade.

Otis is the goods.

balke
11-28-2007, 08:29 AM
I've heard a lot of false trade rumors and stuff from guys who are close to players in other sports, its not like things always happen the way GMs want. Of course, its not like players would really know what's happening with the team all the time either.