Kenny Williams says "It doesn't have to be a center fielder."

So Kenny isnt' as dumb as we sometimes think

Fields for Linebrink would've been absolutely horrendous, even prior to his MLB debut.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Nov 28, 2007 10:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I probably would have traded

Fields for Linebrink in '06. But I thought Fields first half in '06 was an aberration. I just wanted to get value...

Fields had 2 months of elite production for his entire minor league career at that point. 1.5 years of a setup man for a bullpen which was the weak link after Cotts/Marte/Politte/Hermanson disappeared in one form or another, didn't really seem like a bad return, especially for a team which had the ability to compete for a title.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 28, 2007 11:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think

Linebrink could've made the difference in the second half of '06 when the Sox blew so many leads?

I'm not sure Linebrink would've accounted for those precious few wins that would've gotten the Sox into the playoffs that year... but he could have. That would've been a huge deal if he had.

Fields was one of our top prospects at that point (along with Sweeney). I dunno, maybe I would've made that trade. Crede was playing out of his mind that year so I could see why Kenny could consider Fields expendable.

I think the Sox could've beaten the Cards in that WS had they made it that far.

I'm not sure I would've done that trade. The more I think about it the more I think I would have.

Doesn't matter though, it wasn't done and we didn't make the playoffs that year.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Nov 28, 2007 11:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It had more to do with Fields than Linebrink

I really didn't believe in his bat would ever be able to play in the majors at that point. His 2 month hot streak was fueled by a ridiculous BABIP of about 400, with a high strikeout rate, and an only average walk rate. Add it to a disappointing '05, which was propped up by a strong finish, and I just didn't believe in him as a prospect...

I still think he's got a ton to learn, and will probably come in under most posters expectations this year.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 28, 2007 11:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The kid can rake though

when he does make contact.

I don't ever see him ever coming close to Crede's .300 in '06. I see him staying around Crede's typical line prior to that (.240-.260).

I can deal with that.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Nov 28, 2007 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cheat, you weren't wrong

you just didn't realize he killed lefties. If that proves to be a fluke, we'll see quite the collapse if he doesn't improve in other ways.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So if it doesn't have to be a CF...

How about signing Fukodome? Do it for South Side Sox Kenny.

Also, why, when he talks about Sweeney or Anderson do I feel like he's really saying Owens will be starting. Is that just me?

by hitlesswonder on Nov 28, 2007 11:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's essentially what he said

Owens is your opening day center fielder. I believe he's probably been on the phone offering Jose Guillen 4/48 to play LF (even though he would be better defensively than our incumbent RFer). I just haven't seen any reputable connection that would indicate the Sox have any interest in Fukudome.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 28, 2007 11:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On my way to a very critical post....I stopped

So, I think Owens being a starting OF is ridiculous, tremendously so if your team has pretensions of contending. I was going to write a long post on how if the Sox want to go for the playoffs in 2008 they would need to do a lot more than signing a LF and Linebrink and how this half-assery makes it silly to have traded Garland for anything other than a prospect.

But...on the other hand...signing a LF who can hit and not mortgaging what there is of the future for Rowand or Crisp is not the worst thing that could happen. And having only one sub-.700 OPS bat in the OF is an improvement of sorts. So, I can't get the worked up over this turn of events. I think my expectations are clearly lowering...

by hitlesswonder on Nov 29, 2007 12:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to say...

(responding to your second paragraph there) -- would people be mad if the Sox did, in fact, land Fukodome while 'punting' CF? Maybe he's lying through his teeth here, but an Anderson/Owens platoon in CF wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I know we have debates about Crisp vs Owens, and I'm not denying Crisp's value over Owens, but I don't want to even cough up John Shelby for Crisp, much less Carter or (dare I say) Gio.

And yeah, that would mean hopes for competing would take a hit, but in the back of his mind Kenny has to have a little bit of reservation (one would think). And who knows... perhaps one of Owens or Anderson actually surprises -- maybe Owens hits .300 and Andrson plays good defense while being a bit below average at the plate.

by CWSKeith on Nov 29, 2007 12:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be happy

If the Sox signed Fukodome and played ? in CF. Unless a bargain somehow falls to them, Owens/Sweeney/Anderson in CF is fine with me. It would mean the Sox squandered a pick on Linebrink, but it could have been worse.

I do agree with Cheat though -- there's no sign the Sox are going after Fukodome. I wonder who they want...Guillen? Stewart? At least I'm still interested.

by hitlesswonder on Nov 29, 2007 1:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah ha, Plan 3B reveals itself

I was hoping KW wouldn't mention the name of Jerry Owens until January at the earliest. He's gotten rid of Cintron, Pods, Erstad, etc, why does he want to keep him around? If he's posturing to keep the price down on a Crisp trade, I don't see how effective that will be, "You're asking too much for Crisp, you can keep him. Besides, I've got Jerry Owens here already...He's real fast."

If Owens is starting and leading off in April any other offseason maneuvering is pointless. The Linebrink signing and these extensions will be a ridiculous waste of money.

"We've missed a little bit of that grind and edge and we've got to get that back." - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Nov 29, 2007 7:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with Pistol Pete

It's gotta be posturing. Gotta be...

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd give up Shelby for Crisp in a second...

as long as we also acquire a LF'er and Owens is on the bench.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But I wouldn't give up Gio for Coco either.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Absence of a credible connection

usually means there is a deal on the table. Just like there was not much smoke on the Sox being "close to getting Linebrink" at the trade deadline, perhaps it is a good thing that there is no smoke now. Maybe I am grasping....

by CWS05WS on Nov 29, 2007 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

After Jose Guillen and Kosuke Fukudome (if you consider him a corner outfielder over a CF'er), what other decent corner outfielders are available?

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

barry bonds?

wilkerson is on about the same level as guillen, a little below to be sure. after that, it's a pretty big drop.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wilkerson

Larry what do you think of Wilky. He's a player I've thought a lot about lately. If Herm could keep him healthy and with the change of scenery....

He's a player who really should have been better in Texas but wasn't.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Nov 29, 2007 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i posted my thoughts on him

in that free agent list diary SC did. in a nutshell, there are some disturbing trends in his numbers. but, depending upon what the sox scouts think (and their major league level scouts have generally been real good), he'd be a classic KW pick-up who i certainly wouldn't be opposed to signing.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know we say this about everyone...

but his declining numbers make it look like he got off the roids. Although, it could just be due to all of his injuries.

Anyways, guess who his agent is? Yep, Scott Boras. So I doubt he is a target of Kenny's.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The big question is health

IF, as you say, Herm could keep him healthy (do for him what he did for Ellis Burks 15 years ago), he could provide some power. He may also have more physical damage than a trainer can fix.

There should be a variety of corner outfield alternatives available. Has Geoff Jenkins drawn interest anywhere? I could see him popping a few homers at the Cell, at least as the lefty hitter in a platoon. He's not a star, but a useful complimentary player who may (depending on his other offers) take a cheap 1-2 year deal.

Players stuck in other minor league systems could help. Does Shin-Soo Choo have a future in Cleveland? After seeing Erstad trot out to center last year, I'd welcome Jeremy Reed back.

Plenty of centerfielders remain. Last I heard, San Diego doesn't want to give Cameron more than a year and the Padres are looking at trade options to fill his job. I would be mightily amused if Corey Patterson came to the Cell.

Just, please, no Nook Logan.

by asinwreck on Nov 29, 2007 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We did Wilky last week

Look at the diary titled "Yahoo's Jeff Passan" next to this.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wilkerson

As someone who has seen him the last 2 years.....stay away. Overpay for Fuku if need be. You know that the Japanese players at least have very good fundamentals (throwing to the right base, hitting cut off men, hitting to the right side, etc)and he will definately be an upgrade defensively. Wilkerson on the other hand is terrible.

Show mercy. I get to watch the Rangers.

by Tim from Texas on Nov 29, 2007 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Listening to the Conference call

I was trying to figure out who the Sox were willing to part with in '07 to get 2+ months of Linebrink. (Kenny said "We thought we had him last year, but he ended up in Milwaukee.")

The Padres got a LOOGY, a 20-year old lefty who compares to '06 Gio, and a 20-year old pitcher with good, not great numbers in high-A...

The LOOGY is easy. Wasserman would have been plucked without a doubt, even though he uses his right hand. He's got the funky delivery, throws strikes, and I would have to think he was not valued highly at all prior to his call up on July 20th. (The Linebrink trade happened 5 days later)

From there you have to figure that the Sox were willing to part with one legit prospect. If you remove Gio and DLS from the equation, you don't really have any pitchers who compare... Egbert won't have any trade value until he actually starts to contribute at the major league level, at which point the white Sox would be remiss to trade him. So that leaves a collection of your 4-7 prospects...

It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities to think that Kenny offered one of Carter/Sweeney/Shelby plus Wasserman as a throw-in for 2+ months of Linebrink on a floundering team.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 28, 2007 11:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Add Broadway and/or McCulloch

to the names of players who might have been included in a deal this past July.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 28, 2007 11:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If it was Sweeney/McCulloch/Broadway

that makes sense from both perspectives, both why the Pads wouldn't take it and why we would have offered. So I put my money on something along those lines.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hard to say...

Maybe he wanted Linebrink earlier in the year when the floundering wasn't as bad? Maybe he was counting on 2+ months and picks from a class A free agent? Who knows...I get the feeling Williams just says stuff sometimes...

by hitlesswonder on Nov 28, 2007 11:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You know

they would have immediately turned around and given him an extension.

Then those against the trade could have pointed to the extra years as a rationalization for giving up Gio.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 29, 2007 12:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Watching

the trade rumors swirling (Santana, Garza / Young, M Cabrera) is making me very depressed.

If Kenny Williams is able to both "compete" and "develop the minors" at the same time, it will be a masterful (really miraculous) job.

Who in God's f-ing name has been responsible for drafting and developing our talent? WE NEED SMARTER PEOPLE DOING THIS!!!!!!! We are PISSING IN THE WIND until then.

Yesterday we announced a bunch of new "crosscheckers." WTF, they even got the wrong sport!

by ballyb on Nov 29, 2007 9:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

You

got it.....for all the pissing and moaning we do about Kenny and him dealing our prospects....etc...it's the selection and development process that's been the reason for our current mess, if you wanna call it that. He's done fine in all other aspects, considering. Only when HE ACTUALLY DOES trade prospects does it exacerbate the problem in that area. If you wanna blame him for the entirety of that mess, well then.....

by dantesox on Nov 29, 2007 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's where the buck stops....

both he and Jerry Reinsdorf (not paying for elite prospects).

by ballyb on Nov 29, 2007 9:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

At least he didn't name new

"crossdressers"

Give him credit for something!

And if YOU are depressed, the ultimate optimist, we're in a world of hurt.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Nov 29, 2007 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

KW sure is a salesman

but I'm getting tired of him having to sell us Plan C, rather than giving us Plan A. You can see him starting his PR spin of Owens now, so when April comes, and the first White Sox batter to step into the box on opening day is J. Owens, Sox fans won't be so ticked off. I mean, really, Owens in CF? Give me a F'n break. I'd rather have Richar at leadoff and give CF back to BA.

by HulkSmash on Nov 29, 2007 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone know.......

ballpark, what do the Sox minor league operations cost, in aggregate - facilities, ALL salaries (players and scouts), signing bonuses?

Is it $10 million, $20 million, $40 million, ?????

This is like the US vs. Japanese in the car industry. Their methods of manufacturing, styling, etc. were better than ours for years, but it took years to adapt (if we even have yet). The Twins, Braves and Dodgers have had finely tuned minor league system for years. Now the big boys - NY, Boston - have gone that way. We're the laggards and we're paying the price.

by ballyb on Nov 29, 2007 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if i had a background at all

in the real sciences, you can bet i'd be sending in my application.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

RIP Rudie Schaffer...

The name won't mean anything to the youngsters here, but Rudie was the "business" side of all of Bill Veeck's teams. He, Roland Hemond, and Veeck were the Three Amigos who gave me the second greatest summer in (my) Sox lifetime in '77.

Anyway, just couldn't let his death pass without mention on a Sox blog.

Obit here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obituaries/chi-schaffer29nov29,0,4184209.story

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Nov 29, 2007 9:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

thanks for linking that

I hadn't seen the news. Rudie Schaffer was in the room for many of the best stories in Veeck As In Wreck (including Eddie Gaedel's signing). I had no idea he was still alive -- he survived Veeck by almost 22 years.

by asinwreck on Nov 29, 2007 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Man, you guys are ANCIENT

I picture the two of you trading stories whilst coughing up a lung and puffing on Chesterfields.

;)

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and using our hollowed-out legs

...for ashtrays.

by asinwreck on Nov 29, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

congrats to the both of you

for learning how to use the internet.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Off topic...

I know there are several Champions League/Euro football followers here, so...

Fernando Torres is total class. Dude's a baller. Liverpool 4, FC Porto 1 and so long as LFC takes care of business at Marsaille (sp?), they're movin' on up.

by CWSKeith on Nov 29, 2007 10:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

total class?

he's good. scores some great goals. but far too profligate in front of goal. you gotta put in the sitters, too. there's a reason this guy never scored more than 19 goals in a la liga campaign.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus, larry

are you ever caught short where you might respond "I have never heard of that", or "I have no earthly idea and cannot speak intelligently on that subject matter"?

Impressive, bro. You are amazing. Just don't forget your wedding anny.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

intelligently?

i imagine lots of things. just in the sports arena, i'm sure there's no way i could talk about hockey on anything more than a superficial level. basketball, too. most college sports.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's the cartesian perspective:

mistakes come when you extend your will past the extent of your knowledge. your ability to not make mistakes is contingent upon assessing how well you know what you know.

also: the black swan perspective. BUM BUM BUUUUM.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have never heard of that

I have no earthly idea and cannot speak intelligently on that subject matter.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

really?

get it here!

i thought it was a pretty good read and not as hard to read as you might expect. it's seminal, mainly because so much of what he writes remains interesting and important and, for that matter, unresolved.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Decartes?

I think, therefore I am? WTF? This is deep?

And what's with the Black Swan reference? What does that have to do with thefact that a man's reach should not exceed his grasp? larry seems to know when to hold 'em, knows when to fold 'em.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 8:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not referring to that particular bit

the meditations are a lot more than that.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Especially when you are high

or depressed - the state of many of the Mighty Wolverine football fans this year!

Just jacking with you, kid - I was a philosophy minor last millenium (though I admit my Descartes is rusty).

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 30, 2007 7:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

jacking with me?

even our notes of sympathy are surrounded by the scourge of vague homoeroticism.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 30, 2007 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm a bit too practical for those guys

always seemed like intellectual masturbation to me. i like things to have a bit more of a point - or at least a practical point. maybe descartes started at a bit too elementary of a level and his ideas are simply ingrained in later thinkers. at any rate, when i was supposed to be reading some descartes for a philosophy class (maybe it was this one, who knows), i got bored quickly and elected to "study history" with joanna.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i understand the thought

i've definitely had it. but his work should be entitled "problems of philosophy" because that's how they're best read and best framed today. he saw solutions to his problems that have largely been dismissed. and his Platonic language definitely comes off as IM, but in those days it was a lot easier to think about Platonic forms when you don't know about quarks and the like.

besides, joanna was hot.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes she was

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep -- total class

and he's 23 years old and, IIRC, was captaining his Atletico team at a very young age as well.

As far as where he ranks in the EPL or even Europe among strikers, I'm not intelligent enough to make a comment on that. Anecdotally speaking, however, I've seen very few guys who can do what what he does. He's phenomenal when he's got the ball, making things happen like very few others that I've seen. He's so fun to watch.

by CWSKeith on Nov 29, 2007 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the couple times i've seen him

i would have to agree with larry, at least in terms of his production. he seemed out of rhythm a lot of the time, despite the fact that he wasn't being challenged overly by the defenders put on him. perhaps he's overcome that, since i saw him in a few early season matches but really haven't since. so total class? perhaps not. but as you note he's 23. if you're an LFC supporter, you've got a lot to look forward to.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

did you see ronaldo against sporting?

that goal was beyond brilliant. i'm still trying to figure out how he made it spiral like a football. i can't believe he hit side netting from that spot on the field.

but beyond that, his control of the ball is remarkable. if you take the negative (i.e. don't LOSE possession) perspective, it seems like he never screws that up. but he still takes appropriate risks. i don't want to like him because he comes off as a dick, but the face he made after the goal ("THAT HAPPENED. and i knew it would") just made me laugh. i'm not exactly a United supporter, but if he's playing, i'm watching.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i have certain biases

but cristiano is the best player in the world. can play on either wing or behind the striker.two-footed. blistering pace. can create for himself or others. excellent ball skills. excellent crosser. deadly in front of goal. has become a very good header of the ball and, scarily, he only gets better in that regard. and, of course, a free kick specialist.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 10:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

which biases?

i can't say he's the best because i don't know enough about the rest of the world, but he sure is damn good in any case.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 11:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i've spent

considerable time in the red half of manchester. whenever i am within about four time zones, i visit whatever part of england or europe or united states or asia in which united are playing.

by larry on Nov 30, 2007 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so when did you hop on the bandwagon?

and is there any other way for an American to become a fan of a club at this point? I feel like I'm hopping on the Arsenal express for no reason other than I like the way they play and they're one of the top 4.

knowing you though i bet you're some how some kind of legitimate fan. at least you've seen them play live.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 30, 2007 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

late 80s

i can remember when ferguson had to win a FA cup tie away to nottingham forest (quite a good team, especially in cups, at the time) or he would have been sacked. these days, he would have been sacked long before that point - three years and no results (at least on the pitch)? my how things have changed.

i wouldn't worry about being a "legitimate" fan. do you really care what a bunch of scousers or something across the pond think of you?

by larry on Nov 30, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

me being me, i don't

it's just i've never had to do this before and have always had very little regard for the outsiders who've hopped aboard when my teams were doing well. it's really more of a self-criticism than anything. all of my fandoms were brought to me, either by intense friends or families. if i had never met my friend nate in 1st grade, i'd probably have ended up a Cubs fan like everyone else in my neighborhood. boy am i thankful for that.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 30, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

just don't be a liverpool supporter

by larry on Nov 30, 2007 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i've heard that's like being a cubs fan?

or was it more like michigan? win everything, except the important ones. those you get to lose in utterly heartbreaking fashion.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 30, 2007 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i wouldn't say that

they've won the european cup, what, five times, the league at least 18 times, various other cups and, generally, have quite a storied past (and present, i guess). i just dislike their supporters a great deal. heysel set english football back at least a decade.

by larry on Nov 30, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also:

what internet stuff do you read in order to keep up with man u and the premiership in general?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 30, 2007 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

soccernet

has been my homepage for many years. maybe there's something better out there but it's good enough for me and inertia stops me from looking. i usually just watch sky sports and the games and review/preview show on fox soccer. the guardian is pretty good for united news, too. there are some fansites i look in on but they're usually pretty shrill.

by larry on Nov 30, 2007 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i may have asked you already

but how do you track soccer online? any faves?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Prior available?

If he rebounds, a little over 3.5 mil isn't terrible. That's a big if though. Anyways, a decent article about the pitching market:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove07/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=3131579

by Raf on Nov 29, 2007 11:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

He's a decent acquisition...

because you are still only paying him reliever money, whether you use him as a reliever or try to build him up to be a starter in Spring Training. He makes a lot of sense for a team like the Royals.

I guess it all depends on what the Cubs are asking...

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

the rumor has it that if the Cubs don't succeed in trading Prior some time over the next couple of weeks, they'll non-tender him. Of course, that's just rumor, but Prior's agent is Scott Boras, so it wouldn't be surprising if the Cubs just decided to cut bait on him rather than try and meet his demands.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Linebrink

"His contract includes a full no-trade clause." I thought it was some limited 6-team no-trade provision. No, his name isn't Mark Buehrle.

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 12:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's quite a change of philosophy...

from what they contended a few months ago.

I don't suppose it matters, though, as I highly doubt that anyone will want to trade for Linebrink.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, BS.

by ballyb on Nov 29, 2007 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

not four months ago a team traded for him.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Summer reruns at 12:30.

Right after Tom Skilling and the weather.

by ballyb on Nov 29, 2007 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally

better than Matlock.

I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge.

by Toonderstrook on Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Four months ago...

he wasn't signed to a ridiculous contract.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ridiculous contracts

tend to look less ridiculous with the passage of time as more ridiculous contracts get inked.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And over-30 relievers...

tend to look less good with the passage of time, too.

I really, really don't get this signing at all.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What does it matter anyways?

With a full no-trade clause, we are stuck with him for better or for worse.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

remember

the ridiculousness is not so much the yearly dollar amount but the length. two years from now, who knows what the contract will look like. sure, he may suck. but two years at $10MM or so for an averageish reliever may look quite cheap.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta hear Williams

explanation of the COMPLETE no-trade.

by ballyb on Nov 29, 2007 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's about principles.

Those are our principles, and if you don't like them... well, we have others.

by asinwreck on Nov 29, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A quote I can finally get behind

WTF is all the talk of no-trade this and no-trade that when it's violated for a middle reliever? I don't care whether guys have a no-trade or not - just don't posture and then cave a short few months later. Tends to diminish credibility.

Things sure have changed quickly.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

here's your question for the white sox triathlon

will kenny be there?

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He and JR were both there last year.

Supposedly there were some tough questions, and the guys who asked them were beaned by Britt Burns the next day. (Joke.)

Wiz, I would've answered earlier, but the "triathlon" threw me. Fantasy camp, bro.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

fantasy indeed!

that's the only explanation for the linebrink signing...

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

they caved to MB

i don't think it was posturing then - they didn't want to give it to him, for sure. but once you open the door, it's over. you're fucked on that point. we discussed this a lot during those negotiations. JD then took advantage of it. now linebrink. they lost the point and they're not going to get it back.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if kenny had allowed MB to leave

the bitching would've been insane, see ticket sales

who cares about JD and Linebrink?

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember your posts then

and you were spot-on. Once you've lost your virginity you can't get it back.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

Obviously the Sox could have just said "no" to Linebrink on the no-trade option, and not signed him if it was a deal-breaker, no matter what he did w/r/t Buehrle. Obviously Ken Williams really, really likes Linebrink.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sure

but you're oversimplifying. obviously you can always say no. but they lost any leverage on the point they had.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if there is a precedent...

but did just KW lose the leverage, or does the whole Sox organization. And if it is the organization then won't all organizations eventually lose that leverage if there is some sort of sea change?

by CatBrains on Nov 30, 2007 9:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And if the whole organization

is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our baseball institutions in general? I put it to you, CatBrains - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 30, 2007 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't stop him. He's on a roll.

by asinwreck on Nov 30, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rays looking to build $450MM stadium

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7500960

NFW this gets done in our current environment (FL real estate/taxes/insurance/future deficit issues), but it is important to think of the Rays' mindset re: potential trades - they are NOT taking on big $ contracts any time soon. No way, no how. Thus, I'd bet my right nute (the left being held for the Owens bet) that we will not trade with the Rays for the forseeable future.

So my nutes are on the line for the Sox. Can any of YOU make that claim? How much do you want to win, KW? Bet the nutes!

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 2:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think...

the Rays already traded away the outfielder they wanted to trade this winter, anyway. I could be wrong, but I doubt they make any more big moves.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wouldn't the marlins

be first in line for any stadium money? pipe dream.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

NFW. They may not be able to pay

teachers soon:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-bk-statefund112907,0,5698387.story?coll=orl_spor ts_football_jaguars_util

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Nov 29, 2007 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So?

What's really important to you as an American taxpayer (you know, assuming you are American and pay taxes): the educational system or public financing for ostensibly private sector professional sports teams?

by hitlesswonder on Nov 29, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right.

Sorry.

F#$% the little monsters.

Bah humbug.

;-)

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Nov 29, 2007 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Be careful -

they are the ones killing our pro athletes in Florida. Education is the answer. Break the cycle of poverty and violence! Dammit!

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's just unAmerican liberal mumbo jumbo

;)

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Nov 29, 2007 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I LOL at this post.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Nov 30, 2007 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

tomas perez news!

[Houston Chronicle]:

Jose Cruz Jr., the son of former Astros left fielder and current first base coach Jose Cruz, was signed to a minor league contract by the Astros today with an invitation to major league spring training.

...The Astros also signed infielders Kevin Hooper and Tomas Perez and lefthander Stephen Randolph to minor-league deals with spring training invites.

Cruz, Jr., 33, is a career .248 hitter with 204 home runs, 623 RBIs, and 113 stolen bases. He is one of 18 active outfielders to record at least 200 career home runs and 100 stolen bases in his career.

Hooper, 30, played in 60 games with Class AAA Toledo this year and hit .301 with one home run and 19 RBIs. He appeared in 52 games at second base and eight games at shortstop. Hooper played in 14 games with Detroit from 2005-06, hitting .125 in only eight at-bats.

Perez, 33, split last season between Class AAA Las Vegas and Class AAA Charlotte and combined to hit .254 with six home runs and 56 RBIs. Following a midseason trade from the Dodgers to the White Sox, Perez appeared in 88 games at Charlotte, serving as the club's primary shortstop.

Perez, an 11-year major league veteran and switch-hitter, owns a .240 career average with 24 home runs and 180 RBIs in 781 games with Toronto (1995-98), Philadelphia (2000-05) and Tampa Bay (2006).

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 2:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Coco Puffs to Invade the Homerdome?

The latest guess/rumor/innuendo on Santana: Crisp, Lester, Lowrie, and one other prospect. Guess Theo said hell naw to Ellsbury being a piece of the deal.

I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge.

by Toonderstrook on Nov 29, 2007 3:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yep, according to ESPN's Buster Olney...

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_previousnews.aspx?sport=MLB&id=2993

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So it looks like the trade is...

Twins get:
Jon Lester
Coco Crisp
Jed Lowrie
Justin Masterson OR Michael Bowden

Red Sox get:
Johan Santana

Seems like yet another good deal for the Twinkies for only one year of Santana.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've got to think...

that Santana's worth more than that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For only one year?

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

Even for one year. Santana's the best pitcher in the game right now, and whoever trades for him will have the inside track on a contract extension.

That's worth more than an average outfielder and three "B" prospects, none of which project to be better than average.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And besides...

the Yankees can beat that offer, and they'd be foolish not to if the alternative is letting Santana go to the Red Sox.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees may be able to beat the offer...

but they finally realize that they need to rebuild their rotation from within. The glory days of Mussina, Clemens, and Pettitte are over.

Also, did you see that the Red Sox also might be throwing in either Justin Masterson or Michael Bowden? That makes the deal a lot better.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not sure the yankees can beat it

with what the twins want, though. the yankees have lots of pitching - not sure that's what the twins want a lot of. the red sox have the position players and, perhaps more importantly, the major league ready ones. lowrie looks to be the key to this deal. the yanks have no middle infielders to offer. heck, they really have no ready position players to offer.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees...

could offer Melky Cabrera and Philip Hughes, who by themselves would be a better offer.

And if the Yankees are not willing to do that, the Angels could dip into their big reserve of talented young ballplayers.

I'd be shocked if this rumor turns out to be what happens.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's not a better offer, jerry

roughly similar but not better. and the twins would probably rather have four players than two.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine...

then the Yankees throw in a "B" pitching prospect on top of those guys to beat the offer. No biggie.

Again, I'd be shocked if someone didn't beat that offer.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Melky and Hughes is a better deal? Ummm, no.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're crazy

whether they have an inside track or not, that's, what, 15 or so seasons of cheap average production. plus coco. having first dibs to pay johan $200MM isn't worth that much.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's assuming...

that all three prospects pan out, which is a big stretch. None of those guys are "can't miss".

Replace Masterson/Bowden with Clay Buchholz, though, and now you're talking.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no, that's when they stop talking

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gavin Floyd was supposed to be...

a "can't miss" prospect as well and how did that work out?

In any case, it isn't all about "can't miss" guys. It's about who the Twins' scouts think will develop into a good player. And how many under-the-radar players have the Twins developed?

The Twins are probably high on almost all the players involved in this possible trade and they realize that they would be filling numerous holes in their roster for years to come. And the Twins are a team that sometimes have to go quantity over quality anyways because they don't spend any money.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And I'm saying...

that you need at least one "can't miss" guy if you want to trade for someone like Johan Santana, even for only one season.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like who?

Isn't baseball full of guys who are can't miss until they miss?

Is Phil Hughes can't miss?

I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge.

by Toonderstrook on Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if a guy can't miss

why would you trade him for one season of a player, no matter how good?

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Because...

you're trying to win a championship? Santana will almost certainly be better than Phil Hughes in 2008, which is what trading for Santana is all about, right? Winning in 2008?

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i thought it was about

getting dibs to sign him to a long-term deal.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's just...

icing on the cake.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so what you're saying

is that you give up that much - whether it's the red sox rumored deal or your yankees deal - for one year of santana and some icing. that's pure lunacy. this isn't 1987 anymore. GMs are smarter than that.

at any rate, does santana really make the yankees that much better for '08? they're already a near shoo-in playoff team. santana certainly helps their odds a bit in the playoffs but we all know the crapshoot analogy. cashman is in charge over there and he's not this stupid.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I make that deal...

if the alternative is letting him go to my hated rival, yes.

I'd be very, very surprised if this Red Sox offer ended up being the highest one.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

jerry

from such a normally level-headed pragmatist, this is surprising. who cares whether he goes to your hated rival? they just overpaid for him. and this wild card thing doesn't seem to work out that poorly, anyway.

and you can stop telling us how surprised/shocked/astonished/incredulous you'd be. we got it the first time.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But that's the thing...

Crisp, Lowrie, Lester, and another "B" prospect isn't an overpay. The Red Sox wouldn't miss any of those guys.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

count the wins

of course it's an overpay. and of course they'd miss them. there's still an opportunity cost of doing this deal: they can't trade them for something else(s) that would be worth more wins than one year of santana and the icing.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Breaking out the old Economics term...

Good stuff and it makes sense.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no way

one pitcher, no matter how good, isn't enough if he's only giving you 1 year.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

how much better are the odds

that a team gets an extension done for any one player versus signing him as a free agent? there is probably a lot of variation between teams there, but i bet on average, the extension is substantially easier. how much, i've no idea.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Phil Hughes...

is better than any of those Red Sox prospects, by quite a bit.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

right

so why would you trade him for one year of santana? we're talking can't miss here so philip hughes is a can't miss ace and is considered the best pitching prospect in the game. maybe some team does get stupid and trades someone like that for santana. but i doubt it. the yanks will draw the line at kennedy.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Twins would be filling...

two-thirds of their rotation, adding a starting SS, and a CF'er. I can't even fathom how you would think that a Yankees offer of Cabrera and Hughes would be better.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, "two-fifths" of their rotation.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or 40%... ; )

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Would they, though?

I've read questions about Lowrie's ability to stick at short (although I've never seen him play), and neither of those pitching prospects is great.

The only real known quantity the Twins are getting back is Crisp, and even if you like Crisp, he's still only average.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If the Twins can do anything

it's produce pitching talent. They should be getting the best position prospect talent they can to fill in their own gaps.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on whether or not Guidry

is worth his salt. When his mechanics are solid, the Angels weren't able to get a read on his fastball in the start I saw. And they're full of guys who can hit anything anywhere, like Kendrick and Vlad.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I

agree Jerry....there's gotta be a blue-chipper to do the deal if I'm the Twins....one of them MUST be Bucholz or Ellsbury...I'm with you.

by dantesox on Nov 29, 2007 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Floyd was "can't miss"

as a draft pick. That's way different than being a "can't miss" prospect. The difference in information is huge.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 6:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he was a can't miss prospect, too

there's a reason he was with the big club in 2004 at 21. the phils believed the hype instead of nurturing him along.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

since people don't always like to take my word for gospel, for an example, look who the BP staff predicted as their second choice NL ROY in 2005. at 22.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3888

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for backing me up on that one...

I was positive that I was correct in my statement.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it also can depend upon how people

define "can't miss." varies from person to person as to how expansive or restrictive they are.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that was well before my BP subscription

so i really had no idea. i assumed they'd be a little more skeptical of a guy with those numbers. he's a classic scouts vs. stats guy...only if we're seeing the same stuff the scouts saw, i'm not sure why he was such a hit with them. his fastball is one of the reasons why i'm skeptical of exactly what the scouts are saying about Egbert. it's both the speed AND movement of the fastball. check out Phil Hughes or The King. or Old Pedro.

he's prototypical, but only on the surface. he's got good velocity...but no movement to go along with it. like i said, he throws a cutter if you define it the same way as Beckett's. the only time his fastball rides at all is when he messes up his mechanics (specifically gets the ball down by his ear). it's a good thing he developed that slider, because that's pretty much the only way to make that fastball work for him. was Coop the one who taught it to him? if so, more evidence that he's as brilliant as we think he is.

i could go on about pitching all day.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Nov 29, 2007 7:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you, Larry...

I think Jerry is far off-base here.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BoSoxPros

I admittedly don't know much about these guys, but it seems to me like a 23-year old who can play anywhere in the infield who just came off a .900 OPS season between AA and AAA is pretty valuable. And I seem to remember reading recently that Lester is going to be a middle-of-the rotation guy soon enough.

I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge.

by Toonderstrook on Nov 29, 2007 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's three of the top six prospects

of a rather stacked system. plus coco.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta go with the lawyers, JRE

If I'm the Twins I hop all over this - not getting Ellsbury is no deal-breaker for me. I think the Spanks are on the outside looking in.

Don't count out the Angels, though....Moreno wants Santana and has a few chips of his own.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

All depends

Personally that wouldn't do it for me. I'd need one top 20 type prospect at least. Ellsbury, Hughes, Buccholz, Gallardo, Kemp, Laroche, Delmon Young, Howie Kendrick. At least one guy like that. One 5 star prospect. Lowrie, Lester, Masterson, Crisp? A good package, but for me I'd need one of Ellsbury or Buccholz from Boston. I'd much rather have a 3 prospect return with one high impact guy than a 4 prospect return with none.

I guess we'll see what the Twins get.

by bhoov on Nov 29, 2007 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, it follows

we'll be watching, noses pressed up against the glass.

Boy, Terry Ryan sure hasn't been missed in Minny this fall.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's my take...

I think it takes at least one "A" prospect, or a pre-arb player who's proven that he's major-league ready.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by a pre-arb player who's proven

that he's major-league ready you mean jon lester.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Someone...

better than Lester.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lester is better than danks

the hit rate above A-ball tells the story

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 29, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

I still would want more than Lester.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Nov 29, 2007 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

larry, how's the market

treated you the last week? Did you get in on E-Trade before the Citadel announcement?

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you know that's not allowed

and, if i had, i'd presently be in a non-extradition treaty country and not my office.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not allowed

if you were in possession of non-public info. It sure looks like someone knew something, though...buy the rumor, sell the news. (How DO those rumors get started, anyway?)

You buy the dips in a bull market. If we are still in one it was a good move. I, however am an idiot, as I sold GRMN at 100 2 days ago.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

i'd have to be pretty stupid to have publicized my insider trading on a website. didn't get the information from client until after my old in-and-out move a couple weeks back.

and it's better to get out ahead of the peak than be caught in the avalanche on the other side.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and i've been treated just fine

took a little of the dry powder and put more into a vanguard index fund i already owned earlier this week on the drop. nothing exciting but you buy on the dips, right?

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Now it's the SSS

investment club circle jerk, eh? Hope it only takes two, because now that I don't make real money I can't play.

I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge.

by Toonderstrook on Nov 29, 2007 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was feeling left out yesterday

Interesting that larry is the common thread...perhaps the nickname "Spanky" might apply here?

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely.

by dantesox on Nov 29, 2007 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rays get Percival?

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7504354

Hmmmm.

2008 - Sox version of The Battle of the Bulge: The Final Stand

by winningugly on Nov 29, 2007 4:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think

the twins must want a blue chipper for santana

and didn't they get position players yesterday?

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 4:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

check the twinkie system

loaded with young pitching, even without garza. need some help in the field, though - especially infield.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so what?

they got a blue chipper for garza and they won't get one for santana?

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not sure that's an appropriate comparison

if we want to break down the deal to its basics, i'd call it garza and bartlett for young.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, say it was garza and bartlett for young

don't tell me that santana isn't worth more than garza and bartlett

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 5:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and by more I mean

in the sense of a better ONE player, not the sum of multiple lesser players

by The Wizard on Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

okay

i won't.

by larry on Nov 29, 2007 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Johan Santana trade update...

The Boston Globe reports that Johan Santana's agent has yet to begin negotiations with any team looking to acquire the left-hander.
That can't happen until a deal is agreed to, and it already seemed clear that nothing had gotten done. Still, it's nice to have some confirmation. The Globe repeats the Jon Lester-Coco Crisp-Jed Lowrie-Michael Bowden package mentioned earlier and makes it sounds as though Bowden over Justin Masterson was a move by Boston to increase its offer. The Globe believes Robinson Cano is still in play in talks between the Yankees and Twins.
Source: Boston Globe

So the deal is supposedly Jon Lester, Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, and Michael Bowden for Johan Santana.

by SSH2005 on Nov 29, 2007 5:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs