The man never sleeps, so why should I?

by The Cheat on Dec 21, 2005 12:49 AM CST in White Sox News

White Sox right-hander Jon Garland and A's left-hander Barry Zito represent possible trade options, but many in the industry suspect that Garland will be traded to the Dodgers or Angels, while the Astros might not have the type of young impact players that A's G.M. Billy Beane would want for Zito.

Garland, a native of southern California, is a free agent after next season. His long-term preference might be to play closer to home, and both the Dodgers or Angels are deep in prospects who would appeal to the White Sox.

Pretty much what we've said here. The Dodgers are the best trading partner for the Sox.

Tweet Comment 47 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sounds like

other teams know what the asking price is for Garland--two pitching prospects. KW would be a fool to deal Jon to LAA, a rival for the AL Pennant, even if it meant not getting the best deal. The sox shouldn't be helping the competition as they try to repeat.

by cfisk72 on Dec 21, 2005 4:54 AM CST reply actions

Dodgers a likely destination

The way the Dodgers have overhauled their lineup, they would be crazy not to add a SP like Garland for a couple of prospects.

They seem to be in the "Win Now" mode which bodes well for teams looking to deal players they need.

by RME JICO on Dec 21, 2005 10:45 AM CST reply actions

dealing Garland for prospects????

I must be missing something; aren't WE in a "win now" mode???? Otherwise, why trade two top prospects for a 35 year old dh? I am not against trading Garland, even in part as a cost cutting idea. But it makes absolutely no sense to trade him for prospects, in a year when you are structured to go for it all. I don't think that is Kenny's way, and if he does do it I cannot believe you fellows think it is a good idea. Can't we get a veteran centerfielder who could be a safety net in case the kids implode, and who might hit second? Or at least SOMEBODY who is going to help us get from point A to point B THIS YEAR? Otherwise, just keep Garland and hope he helps you win it all again, then use his money for a free agent next year. I am just amazed you all are talking about getting prospects, and seem to have no problem with that!!

by Lprof on Dec 21, 2005 5:24 PM CST up reply actions

You need to evaluate all of the moves on the whole

A rotation of Buehrle/Count/Garcia/Vazquez/McCarthy is better than the Buehrle/Count/Garcia/Garland/Duque that we had last year.

The line up with Thome & Anderson (and a hopefully improved Uribe & Crede) is better than the Everett/Rowand/Uribe/Crede they sent out there last year.

The bullpen is probably a bit weaker, but there's been nothing to idicate that Garland's departure wouldn't bring some help there as well.

Something like a Brazoban+Broxton+Miller deal would help fill both the pen and the Farm.

The Sox aren't just in "win now" mode. They're in Win for a long time mode. They want to win this year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after... you get the picture. If the Sox can't lock Garland up, if he's not helping the '07 club directly, then he's going to do it by being shipped out to help them indirectly.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 21, 2005 5:49 PM CST up reply actions

why focus on the farm NOW???

You make a lot of unproven assumptions; you don't know that Anderson is better than Rowand. He hit .176 in the bigs, for pete's sake, he has no speed, and Ozzie has openly worried about his defense. And, most importantly for a team that has pretensions of repeating, there is absolutely no plan B. Whether the new rotation is better than last year's is beside the point; the issue is whether it gives us a better chance to win this coming year to have Garland in it than not to have him in it but have whoever comes in a trade. Frankly, at this point, I am much more concerned about winning it all next year than the farm. Otherwise, you will be swimming half way across a river, by trading good prospects for Thome. Either they are going for it, or they aren't. If they aren't and are therefore more concerned about the farm, the trade for Thome was ridiculous. If they are, in fact, going for it, then to trade Garland for prospects is ridiculous. There is no middle ground.

by Lprof on Dec 21, 2005 7:17 PM CST up reply actions

So you're upset that Anderson

wasn't able to hit .400 while facing Johan, Randy, Radke, and King Felix? That type of rash judgement on small sample sizes isn't going to get you very far. As for Anderson's percieved sloth, from the reports I've recieved, Anderson is actually faster than Rowand, though the SB hasn't been a big part of his game.

---

What was the plan B for Podsenik last season? I mean he had a .313 OBP in '04. Surely they weren't counting on him to be their leadoff man.

What was the plan B for Iguchi last season? Not a single White Sox scout saw him play in person before he was signed. The answer to this question can not be Willie Harris, as they had already determined that he, in fact, was not the answer.

What was the plan B for Uribe last season? What if he was worse than he was in '04? Oh wait, he was.

What was the plan B for Rowand last season? What if he was worse than he was in '04? Oh wait, he was.

What was the plan B for Jermaine Dye last season? Here was a guy who hit .240 against right handed pitching in his previous three seasons.

The point is, you buy low, sell high. That's what the Sox are looking to do. -- And right now, you trust the White Sox scouts. They've proven that know what they're doing. Do you miss Miguel Olivo? or Carlos Lee? or Maggs?

Let's not forget that "Winning it all" is not a guarantee. I'd rather be the Braves, with their high roster turnover, a seemingly enless run of division titles, and the chance to "win it all" every year, than the Marlins with their high roster turnover, no division titles and chance to win it all once every 5 years.

Garland here in '06 might fractionally increase your chance at making the playoffs in '06. Garland in the NL in '06 might fractionally decrease your chance at making the playoffs in '06 (but those chances are better than they were the day after we won the title, and far better than they were at the beginning of last season). Garland's absense would, in theory, increase our division hopes in '07 and '08 too.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 21, 2005 7:48 PM CST up reply actions

i have developed an acute

sense of timing that allows me to type redundant things at the exact moment others are posting them :)

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 21, 2005 7:55 PM CST up reply actions

I'd like to add

These deals are not made in the absense of a budget,

From the reports I've seen of Garland's predicted arbitration award and the Sox current situation, the Sox payroll is projected to be in the mid-90's. Kenny Williams has been quoted as saying that the budget is about $90M.

If you'd like to donate the $5M to the Sox that they'd need to keep Garland in the rotation with McCarthy in the pen, more power to you.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 21, 2005 8:03 PM CST up reply actions

Then let's admit what is going on

Kenny may well have budget problems that force him to trade Garland for prospects--but if so, it doesn't mean I would have to like it, just be resigned to it. The attitude I have been sensing here is that it is a good idea to make such a trade, regardless of budget constraints. As for giving the Sox $5M, I think I have done almost that in buying World Series merchandise.

by Lprof on Dec 21, 2005 9:31 PM CST up reply actions

reading is a skill

I certainly don't recall saying I was worrying about Anderson because he didn't hit 400 against top pitching; I said I was concerned because he hit a rotten 176. Does this mean he won't have a good year? Not at all. It does mean, however, that a team that wants to win should have at least some idea of who is going to play center field if it becomes clear that he is a 4A player. I certainly don't think that is an unreasonable request. Uribe, Rowand, etc. all had major league track records. Anderson doesn't; heck, he didn't even hit 300 in the minors (again, that does NOT necessarily mean he won't make it in the majors; it means you need a plan B in case he turns into the equivalent of having a pitcher hitting in the lineup). Hence if we do trade Garland, it should be either for someone who can play center, or someone who will provide strong help in the bull pen. Yes, I was upset that we didn't make a trade at the deadline to improve our hitting, because it really was uneven, at best--and we came darn near close to blowing one of the biggest leads ever for that very reason. True, in the end we didn't, but we lost 13 1/2 games off of a lead; we won, not because we didn't trade for a hitter, but despite that fact.
It comes down, quite simply, to this: You don't win a pennant (usually--of course strange things happen, but at this point we need to base things on common sense)by trading an 18 game winner for prospects who won't help you this year. I am truly amazed that anyone thinks this rather modest assertion is in any way controversial.

by Lprof on Dec 21, 2005 9:25 PM CST up reply actions

Reading is a skill

And so is writing. Find the button on your computer labeled "<--- Enter." It's useful if you desire your writing yo be palatable to others.

Back to your I-want-a-plan-B-for-Anderson argument...Anderson "who didn't hit .300 in the minors" is, in fact, a career .301 hitter in the minor leagues. So you're just plain wrong there.

As for his .176 in 34 at-bats, have you ever heard of sample size? It was 34 freakin' at-bats. And of those 34 at-bats, an inordinate amount of them was spent facing All-Star competition. Those pitchers he faced combined to allow just a .231/.301/.360 batting line in '05. There is only one player in all of baseball with more plate appearances that Anderson who faced a tougher group of pitchers. So if you must hold onto your "he only hit .176," you can at least rest assured that he won't have to Johan, Randy, and Felix every at-bat. There will be plenty of opportunities to fatten up facing the Royals and Tigers pitching staffs.

I get the feeling that you feel that anyone who doesn't already have a few years of major league service is useless to this team. -- I don't think anyone is in favor of trading Garland for bit players who are years away from the majors. If you read my trade proposal in this thread (Brazoban/Broxton/Miller) you'll see that Brazoban would help fill the pen, Broxton is a player who would compete for a '06 spot in the pen and would likely end up there ala Jenks if he didn't make it out of spring training, and Miller who's a former top draft pick who's about to be a couple years removed from surgery (Read: about to be fully healthy and ready to climb the organizational ladder quickly). These aren't throw away guys. They are two players who should impact the '06 team and 3 who should impact '07 and beyond.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 21, 2005 10:27 PM CST up reply actions

Usefulness

You can make a case that a good AAA/AA SP prospect and a decent bullpen arm would be more useful to the Sox this year than keeping McCarthy in the pen:

I could be wrong, but I think McCarthy's value is maximized as a SP this year. He looked great in the stretch run last year. It's not crazy to say he could pitch as well as Garland would (probably wrong, but not crazy).
You get a bullpen arm that you wouldn't otherwise have.
You have a decent minor league SP prospect that you can call up in case of injury.
With the lower payroll maybe you can afford to take on a contract at the trading deadline. That flexibility is important because you never know who will get hurt or just suck and need to be replaced.

As a bonus, the RP and SP you get will be available after 2006, which apparently Garland wouldn't.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 21, 2005 11:11 PM CST up reply actions

reading still a problem, I guess

If you will go back over what I wrote, you hopefully will notice that I DID NOT say I was sure Anderson would have a bad year; all I said is the jury is still out; it is just as likely that he won't work out as that he will; or I could even concede it is 60-40 that he will (just like our scouts were right about Borchard, huh?). What the hell do you plan to do if the 40% comes through? Your analogies to Pods, Dye, etc. are just nonsense. Those guys had proven they could do it in the bigs; of course we were taking chances; one always does that. But we had reason to believe those players were at least capable of a top year; I defy you to show me how Anderson has EVER shown that. Heck, Ozzie himself said he was worried about his defense. Also, the stakes are higher this year, I think. At this point last year, we had very little reason to believe we had a reasonable shot at the World Series. This year, we do. It would be a shame to screw that up because we had no backup for a totally unproven rookie. For all of your bluster, you have not once answered my question: who plays center if Anderson flops? You obviously have a lot more experience at blogging than I do, since I just started. I seriously doubt that I trust your judgment about the Sox more, however.

by Lprof on Dec 22, 2005 8:54 AM CST up reply actions

I guess I'm not seeing

how Anderson will make or break the team. He's not going to be as bad as Steve Finley was for the Angels last year, and they still made the playoffs. As long as he's hitting ninth and not leadoff or second, he'll have time to make adjustments.

Whether we have World Series expectations probably doesn't mean a whole lot to Kenny, because from his quotes, he always has World Series expectations. He had them last year, and he delivered.

by Sox Machine on Dec 22, 2005 9:43 AM CST up reply actions

fair point

That's a fair point; maybe I have become too focused on Anderson on a team that should be rather good in all other respects (though I am keeping my fingers crossed about Thome's health; A LOT turns on that, I think). I guess it is just that I have tied it to the Garland thing: it makes no sense to me to trade him for anyone who cannot reasonably be expected to help us at a week point this coming season, and I see center, and probably the bull pen, as those points. This brings me back to the idea of Garland for future prospects. Of course, if there is a rookie who has a better than not chance of helping this year, that is to be considered. But while perhaps I am being naive, it seems to me that first line starting pitching--for many teams, even for just one year--is a premium commodity, and if we do trade Garland I see no reason why we shouldn't get back at least one player who can help us this year.

by Lprof on Dec 22, 2005 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

i don't like arguments

so how about we compromise here and trade garland for lastings milledge?

by goldstone97 @ South Side Sox on Dec 22, 2005 9:59 AM CST up reply actions

done deal

consider it done.

by Lprof on Dec 22, 2005 11:47 AM CST up reply actions

Umm.....

"Heck, Ozzie himself said he was worried about his defense."

Ozzie also said that Uggy Urbina is a "clean" guy.

Ozzie also said that the Sox were going to get another speed type hitter to move Iguchi down in the order.

Ozzie also said last winter that Podsednik would probably be in CF and Rowand in LF.

Get the point? Ozzie's word isn't gospel.

by CWSKeith on Dec 22, 2005 1:12 PM CST up reply actions

yeah, but do have you better info?

I don't disagree with your point about Ozzie, but assuming he is not psychotic, he must have had SOMETHING to base his statement on (for example, his statement about Urbina probably derived from loyalty to an old friend; I cannot possibly imagine a reason to dis his rookie centerfielder unless he had seen something he didn't like). Anyway, do you have anything better to go on?

by Lprof on Dec 22, 2005 4:34 PM CST up reply actions

A quick Google search shows

that Baseball America rated Anderson the best defensive outfielder in the White Sox system before the 2005 season.

by Sox Machine on Dec 22, 2005 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

Who was

higher thought of defensively than Jeremy Reed... Who just so happened to be one of the best defensive centerfielders in the AL.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 22, 2005 8:30 PM CST up reply actions

hmmmm

first, i don't think he said that anderson was better than rowand. seems to me he liked the new line-up combination w/ thome/anderson better than the one with everett/rowand. i don't think this relies too heavily on unproven assumptions. a quick glance at career stats b/t thome & everett will clear that one right up, even if anderson turns in a weak 06.

second, why would a general manager be locked into "win now" or "stock the farm system" as hermetically sealed alternatives? it makes perfect sense to me that KW might be looking to get some strong prospects now that he has traded some away. he might be looking to cultivate a future player or to flip some to another team for an established major leaguer.

i've read and thought a lot about the direction the sox have taken this off-season, and i think the correct conclusion-- whether you agree with specific trades/acquisitions or not-- is that KW and the Sox are ambitously trying to move the franchise into long-term contention with a big-market mentality. that requires re-tooling the current roster AND looking ahead.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 21, 2005 7:50 PM CST up reply actions

Nice work, if you can get it

hmmmmm....win now, and stock the farm system for the future--what a great idea! Maybe now Kenny can cure AIDS and settle the war in Iraq. When you don't have the payrolls that Boston or New York have and you want to win, it is, as a practical matter, impossible to do both. Make no mistake; so far, I like Kenny's moves--but he hasn't yet traded an 18 game winner for prospects who will help him only in the future, as people here have been recommending.

by Lprof on Dec 21, 2005 9:28 PM CST up reply actions

It's possible to contend and build...

...the Braves and A's are two teams that have been in playoff contention and developed young players at the same time. So it is possible. I think without a huge payroll, it's a good strategy.

I'm anticipating a "Braves and A's always fail in the playoffs" response. While it's true that haven't had great postseason success, I think in short series like the playoffs luck is a very big factor. Given that, I would like a team that is in contention multiple years (increasing the odds of a WS) rather than one that sells out for a single season. When is the last time you saw a team do that and win?

by hitlesswonder on Dec 21, 2005 11:01 PM CST up reply actions

Florida Marlins

I believe what you are talking about is the Florida Marlins. And compared to the Braves or A's, I think it's better to be a Florida Marlins fan. After all, they have won 2 World Series in the last 6 years. I would prefer this anyday over a competitive team that every year chokes in the playoffs. The point is to win the whole thing. I would be willing to suffer through a few really crappy seasons in a row if I knew that I would have a Championship caliber team every 5 years.

Also, I don't think luck plays as big of a factor as you may think. Usually, the cream rises to the top during the playoffs. You sound like a Flubs fan who thinks the Sox won the Series because of luck. I think that is minimizeing the accomplishments of a really great team.

by DeeDubs24 on Dec 22, 2005 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

Calling me a Flubs fan?!

That's just blasphemy. And obnoxious. Read what I said: luck is a bigger factor in the playoffs than the regular season, simply because it's 162 versus 5 or 7 games. Sometimes mediocre players get hot and good players cold over a few at bats. It's that simple. Disagree if you want, but drop the persecution complex. I said nothing about the the 2005 Sox. They were a great team, and proved it in the regular and post season.

As for the Marlins, they paid top dollar for one team that won the WS. The second time, it was a good team built by Dombrowski and Beinfast from prospects mostly. We'll see how well the fire-sale appoach works the second time around.

I think limiting your chances to win the WS to once every 5 years is silly, but we'll just have to disagree.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 22, 2005 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

Well...

i just wouldn't want to be a Braves or A's fan. I think apathy has set in with those fans that they will never get over the hump. And even if the teams did, it would be more like a "finally" than celebration.

I'm all about dynasty's as much as the next guy. But in my opinoin, the Braves and A's are not necesserally ideal models to follow.

I realize that you weren't exactly saying this. And sorry about the name calling, but when luck is what is depended on to win a championship, I can't help but think that that is their only rationale for the 2005 Sox. It's really not that simple.

I'm curious if there are some teams that you would consider lucky to win the World Series?

by DeeDubs24 on Dec 22, 2005 2:02 PM CST up reply actions

Luck isn't the only factor...

...and I don't think it's the biggest one in the postseason. I'm just saying it plays a bigger role than in the regular season, and increases the chance that the "best" team won't actually win. I guess my main point is that the fire-sale and then compete for a WS in five years cycle seems silly to me because throwing away 4 years to gamble on one is a bad bet.

As for lucky WS winners, since this is a Sox blog how about the 1987 Twins? 85 wins in the regular season. And the 1991 Twins and 1993 Jays maybe. Again, they were all good teams, and they obviously played the best in the post-season. But a WS can be decided by Frank Viola or Josh Beckett simply pitching the best ball they ever have, and putting their team over top.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 22, 2005 10:44 PM CST up reply actions

then why trade for Thome?

This simply isn't true; by trading for Thome, the Sox showed they are going for it NOW. Sure, you would like to both go for it now AND hope that you are building for a long time. But the way baseball is now, you can fill a lot of gaps through free agency and/or trades next offseason.

by Lprof on Dec 21, 2005 7:20 PM CST up reply actions

How soon we forget

The Sox were hammered on this site and others (and I was doing some of the hammering) because they were in a position to "win now," and didn't go for it by acquiring another bat, like Griffey. They opted to hold onto their prospects for the time being.

But wait -- they still won it all. See? They're not mutually exclusive.

The Thome trade was made to fill two major weaknesses -- DH and left-handed power. They filled that void by dealing from areas they felt they could replenish. That's how running a major league team is supposed to be -- fill as many holes as cheaply as you can so you can make splashes that count.

Having to buy FAs just to be competitive is a game you can't win (see: The Detroit Tigers), because you'll run out of resources in a hurry.

by Sox Machine on Dec 21, 2005 8:32 PM CST up reply actions

That's crazy...

You take the best offer, regardless of the team your going trading with. If Anahiem feels like offering up Brandon Wood for Jon Garland, that's a deal you really have to think about, and maybe (probably) even make. If a team is going to overpay for a pitcher who's likely going to regress a bit going into next season, then that's fine.

If the Dodgers offered Edwin Jackson and Joel Guzman for Garland, would you guys accept/like the deal? Or would you rather have Greg Miller? Or a guy like Broxton?

by CWSKeith on Dec 21, 2005 11:15 AM CST reply actions

Edwin Jackson

seems like the Dodger version of Jon Rauch. I don't think he has the future he used to have. Though Miller might be the same way.

by Sox Machine on Dec 21, 2005 11:19 AM CST up reply actions

Brandon Wood?!!

Are you kidding CWS. I would think about that for about a nanosecond. The guy is a legit shorstop who led the minor leagues in homers and X base hits. When the lists come out he will be one of the top 5 prospects in baseball. I would trade 1 year of JG for him straight up with no questions asked.

by bhoov on Dec 21, 2005 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed

Wood for Garland would be a done deal. I don't think the Angels would even think about doing that trade.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 21, 2005 11:51 AM CST up reply actions

That's a tough question

I think the Sox need a SP prospect, so of what you mention it be between Miller and Jackson. I would go with Miller I think. In Sickels review of Dodger's prospects, someone mentioned Jackson's down to 91 max on his fastball which used to top out at 96(?). Of course Miller wasn't even on the list, but Jackson seems likely to be pretty hurt. All that being said, a package of Guzman and Jackson/Miller would be a great return for Garland. I'd be happy.

Even if the Sox only got Miller and Jackson for him, I think it would be a good trade. And 2 SP prospects increases the chances that the Sox will have someone who could make it in the show.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 21, 2005 11:48 AM CST up reply actions

Cooper and Vazquez

This interesting tidbit came from the Dail Herald in relation to Vazquez.

"What we hope is to have a team behind him that is better than he's used to," Williams said. "He has some of the best stuff in the league. Fortunately I have a pitching coach in Don Cooper that, even going back to when we were both in the minor league system, has an idea of what type of pitchers we can help and what type we can't."

So Coop apparently is consulted on these kinds of pickups. I'm betting Cooper played a big role in the acquisition of Contreras.

by bhoov on Dec 21, 2005 12:03 PM CST reply actions

which goes back to that

old discussion about how to measure "stuff." It might just be like pornography-- you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. There was an article on THT about new measures of "stuff" that were based on ratings of individual pitches collected into a massive database. Obviously the rub is that each pitch has to be "rated" by somebody, which again boils down to a subjective evaluation.

Contreras has obviously always had electric stuff, and apparently Cooper thinks Vasquez does too. His K/IP rates would indicate as much. Let's hope Coop gets a great year out of him.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 21, 2005 12:31 PM CST up reply actions

What About Izturis?

Now that the Dodgers have signed Furcal, would they be interested in including Izturis in a Garland deal? I know he's out until the 2nd half of '06, but I'm still not sold on Uribe for the long haul so I'm wondering if we should use the JG trade as an opportunity for insurance there. Izturis would be an excellent #2 hitter as well. Thoughts?

Turning the Chicago Baseball Tide - One Championship at a Time

by WestSideSoxFan on Dec 21, 2005 12:40 PM CST reply actions

If you don't like Uribe....

...you'd hate Izturis. Lifetime OPS+ of 69!

They both don't hit for a great average, and they both don't draw walks. At least Uribe can hit for some power, and he's probably better with the glove, although they're both fine defensive shortstops.

Izturis wouldn't be bad as a reserve infielder, but he's nothing of value offensively.

by Sox Machine on Dec 21, 2005 12:51 PM CST up reply actions

Huh?

He'd be an excellent #2 hitter? You're talking about Cesar Izturis, the guy with a career .295 OBP, right?

Ick... I'll take Juan Uribe, thank you very much.

by CWSKeith on Dec 21, 2005 12:47 PM CST reply actions

Nightengale's column in USA Today says

"The Red Sox are asking the Dodgers for prospects in return for left-handed starting pitcher David Wells...The White Sox plan to start soliciting offers for starting pitcher Jon Garland, who won 18 games in 2005, in an attempt to acquire more bullpen help. ..."

I'm disappointed to hear both items. LA might prefer Wells to Garland (he's older and Coletti learned to build teams in SF). And relievers are so hard to predict, I'd hate to see Garland go for just a bullpen arm or two.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 21, 2005 5:49 PM CST reply actions

I posted a link to the same thing above

Nightengale has terrible reputation for this type of stuff though, or at least when compared to Rosenthal.

Just to humor him, I proposed a Brazoban, Broxton, Miller trade.

Brazoban fits the Sox mold. Good stuff, coming off a down season. Probably undervalued by his current team, and he's still got 4 years under the reserve clause.

Broxton is comparable to Brad Lidge, with a 100MPH heat and nasty slider. He could make the '06 Sox out of the pen, but would likely start in the minors. He would be the centerpiece of the deal, either helping the '06 club out of the pen or being a fixture in the rotation down the road.

Miller is the highly thought of lefty with an injury history. High risk, high reward type of guy. -- You could just as easily throw Edwin Jackson in here instead. He's really struggled since he dominated in his breaf call-up in '04.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 21, 2005 6:07 PM CST up reply actions