White Sox really are players for Cabrera

by The Cheat on Nov 11, 2007 1:43 PM CST in Rumors Comment 62 comments

I had yet to acknowledged the Miguel Cabrera rumors because I didn't feel the Sox had the prospects to get a deal done. And in Ken Rosenthal's latest piece, he says the same thing. But, citing the always mysterious baseball sources, he says the Sox are still in the running with the intent to play Cabrera in LF.

For the White Sox to acquire Cabrera, they probably would need the Red Sox to re-sign third baseman Mike Lowell, the Angels to balk at moving second baseman Howie Kendrick and the Dodgers and Yankees to focus on pitching instead.

In the admittedly unlikely event that all of that took place, the White Sox then would need the Marlins to accept a package of, say, left-hander Gio Gonzalez, third baseman Josh Fields and center fielder Jerry Owens.

Such an offer probably would be too light, but perhaps the Sox could acquire additional prospects for right-hander Jon Garland in another deal. Then again, parting with Garland on top of Gonzalez -- one year after trading Brandon McCarthy -- might not be such a good idea.

It's a huge longshot, but it's all we'll be reading about until spring training when Cabrera is still a Marlin.

0 recs | Comment 62 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It is a huge longshot with the prospects we have..

right now. Trading Garland for prospect(s) to then throw in the pot for Cabrera still may not be enough though.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 1:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Garland's haul

should be about the same as the one for renteria, especially if Jerry will pony up some cash to sweeten the deal. (In the MLB, you're often buying prospects)

I'd expect a near-ready league average prospect (a Nov '05 Brian Anderson) and a high-ceilinged mid-to-low level prospect (Chris Young, Gorkys, Gio type).

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 11, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

More than I would have thought

I thought Sickels was spot-on with Garland bringing back a B and C prospect. I really think Renteria is more valuable. He's a SS with 2 years left (right? I think he has a 2009 option). And unlike Garland he's coming off a very good year.

I'd love to see a trade where the Sox threw in money. I don't know if I remember that ever happening.

by hitlesswonder on Nov 11, 2007 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

is there anything that prevents the sox

from offering the trade-to team a window to negotiate an extension?

by The Wizard on Nov 11, 2007 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep...

Edgar Renteria's contract:
2008: $9 million
2009: $11 million Team Option OR $3 million Buyout

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Since when do the Sox ever eat any salary...

in any trade to get better prospect(s)/players back in return? The Sox dump high salary players for trash prospects/players for the sole purpose of salary dumping (see Ray Durham and Carlos Lee).

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And I don't have a problem with trading Garland...

It's the right move. But don't be expecting some stud prospect(s) back in return. I wouldn't put my money on the Sox taking on any of Garland's 2008 salary to get better prospect(s) back.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's pretty much what I think...

A package maybe a little bit less than what Garcia brought back (a project and B prospect -- Gio was coming off a bad season in AA). And no way the Sox throw in money. They don't like to spend money on non-major league players.

by hitlesswonder on Nov 11, 2007 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

this

would make me happy, the torpedo resigning has left me feeling blue

by tubesox on Nov 11, 2007 4:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

This would possibly make for

the chubbiest left side of the infield in recent memory.

by Hazymania on Nov 11, 2007 6:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And throw in a day when Toby Hall is catching.

Heavy D and the Fat Boys.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 7:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

reacquire Carlos Lee in left, you might actually see the stadium tilt slightly in that direction.

by Hazymania on Nov 11, 2007 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha...

It would be like at Wrigley Field -- some fans down the LF foul line would have obstructed view seats.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Need Cabrera

I think we can do a lot more with lesser known , highly productive players.
We don't need Cabrera.

I slept on the beach last night.....can I get a refund on my room?

by coconut on Nov 11, 2007 7:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I would love to add...

the best young hitter in all of baseball, thank you very much. He is the one player worth giving up the farm for and giving a gigantic contract to. Get him on the Atkins Diet and you can throw him back at 3B once Crede is gone. But with Fields traded to the Marlins, we would have to hope that Ryan Sweeney pans out because we would need a cheap LF option for 2009 (I'm assuming we sign Torii Hunter or some other free agent CF'er this offseason).

2008 Lineup:
2B Richar
CF Hunter
LF Cabrera
DH Thome
1B Konerko
RF Dye
3B Crede
C Pierzynski
SS Uribe

2009 Lineup:
LF Sweeney
2B Richar
3B Cabrera
DH Thome
1B Konerko
RF Dye
CF Hunter
C Pierzynski
SS ???

In both 2008 and 2009, Ozzie would have some speed at the top of his lineup so that should keep him happy. These lineups are as old as dirt but what other choice do we have?

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

re

He is the one player worth giving up the farm for and giving a gigantic contract to.

and do what? surround him with jerry owens and andy gonzalez and win 80 games? whoop dee do...

I'm with larry on this one: 2 years of cabrera are worth less than 6 of gio and 5 of fields and whatever more it takes to get him...

by The Wizard on Nov 11, 2007 8:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just posted possible lineups...

for the next two seasons. Jerry Owens and Andy Gonzalez are nowhere to be seen.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

but if the sox somehow get cabrera, owens and gonzalez will be here!

btw, why doesn't gonzalez play winter ball? ozzie wanted him to play 1B this winter!

by The Wizard on Nov 11, 2007 8:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a problem...

with both Owens and Gonzalez as backups. Why pay more money for bums like Erstad and Cintron? May as well have cheap bums on the bench instead of expensive ones.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 9:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

but will they be used as backups? [I realize you didn't put them in your lineups]

anyway, my point was that a cabrera trade will result in the team losing more that it will gain

by The Wizard on Nov 11, 2007 9:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think we can find better bums

than andy gonzalez to be on the bench. he should be nowhere near a major league roster.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 9:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Neifi Perez is available.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gio is still an unknown...

he looks like he will be a good one but so did Brian Anderson. And I like Josh Fields but he isn't going to post a .950 to 1.000 OPS every year like Cabrera. Of course, the only way I would want to trade the farm for Cabrera is if the Sox kept offering him a monster contract each and every day he is in a Sox uniform until he accepted it. He is basically a much younger A-Rod and the one player in baseball worth trading the farm for. Imagine having Cabrera batting third for us for years...

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

come on

i realize this is the offseason and everyone gets visions of arods and miggies in their dreams. but the sox aren't going to sign miguel cabrera to a 10 year, $350 million deal.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said that the White Sox would...

but I sure would.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 10:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would support

getting a possible Hall of Famer on the cusp of his peak. The man will be 25 next April and has posted OPS+ of 150, 159, and 151 the past three seasons.

I would understand trading anyone in the organization to get him.

by asinwreck on Nov 11, 2007 10:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

and

in two years, when the sox are by far the worst team in baseball and miggy signs the richest deal ever with the yankees, you and every other sox fan who supported this trade would be telling everyone that you thought it was the stupidest idea ever. because, from the sox point of view, it pretty much is.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No. I still like the Albert Belle signing.

Even though he bolted two years later. Actually, the Belle signing indicated to me than Reinsdorf can surprise now and again. I never thought he'd offer more than three years to Buehrle and yet he did. Perhaps he would offer Cabrera +$300 million with voidable years. If his guys are passionate enough about getting Cabrera in the first place, maybe he makes that commitment.

Even if Cabrera walks in two years, the Sox have enjoyed his age 25 & age 26 seasons. His baseline the past three years is an OPS+ of 150; approaching his peak, he is a decent bet to provide the kind of excellence we have not seen in Chicago since Frank Thomas's prime. I'd be willing to sacrifice a lot for that. I presume that his performance would at the very least qualify him as a Type A free agent and the Sox would get draft picks.

...and exactly what would we be sacrificing? The promise of Fautino, perhaps, but wouldn't he be worth gambling on Cabrera? What, in this organization, is indispensable at this point in time?

by asinwreck on Nov 11, 2007 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what prospects did we trade to get belle again?

different concepts. you want to throw money at miggy in two years, i'm right there with you.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Freddy Garcia trade is probably...

the only decent comparison. We gave up supposed sure-thing prospects and locked Garcia up to a contract shortly after we acquired him. That worked out great.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're the one who mentioned $

being a sticking point. If the Sox can trade prospects and then actually sign Cabrera do you feel the same way as if they trade prospects and then lose him for draft picks? Is the contract at all relevant to your reasoning?

My impression of the farm system -- right now -- is that the Sox have no indispensable talent coming up. Fautino is the one piece I would regret dealing, but (much as the Red Sox gave up Hanley Ramirez to get Josh Beckett), I would understand trading value for value.

by asinwreck on Nov 11, 2007 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

here's my reasoning

the trade makes no sense if all you're getting is two years of cabrera and draft picks. and since the sox aren't going to sign miggy to a 10 year, $350 deal (or whatever), it's a non-starter. yes, i would probably reconsider my position on the trade if, in some bizarro universe, we had bizarro jerry who pays top dollar for players. but we don't.

i don't know what you mean by indispensable talent. even average, cost-controlled players are worth a whole lot. fields is that already. danks is likely to be that. DLS is likely to be at least that. we don't have a lot of these types in our system. we need to hold onto them or we are in serious, serious trouble in two or three years - even if we have a miguel cabrera.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yet

Say we keep Danks, and Fautino, and Fields. Assume, hell, that Chris Carter is an average player and can be added to the list. Could a team with that talent compete in the AL Central in 2009? 2011? 2013? By compete, I don't mean finish six back, but have a realistic shot at winning the division against teams in Cleveland and Detroit that have vital, well-funded player development systems, AND (in the Tigers' case) a willingness to pay for both veteran and amateur talent?

I agree with you that we don't have many of these players. Where I differ is that I don't believe we have enough of them now (nor will have developed enough of them in two years) to make a difference between contending and a 70-82 win team at any time they are under Sox control. In the arms race emerging in the AL Central, the Sox are the United Kingdom heading into a nasty surprise at Suez.

I do not believe this collection of talent is a significantly greater bet to go forward than rolling the dice on two compensatory draft picks in two years. And that's sad, because I understand that the draft is a crapshoot, particularly in the supplemental round.

Would I rather spend a fraction of the money it would take to sign Cabrera and ply Al Avila and Logan White away from their organizations and offer them carte blanche to sign the best talent they can find in the Carribean? Of course. Are the chances of that happening much greater than Reinsdorf breaking the bank to sign Cabrera? Do you think so?

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

you're asserting

that we won't be able to compete anytime in the next 8 years or so? i'm going to have to respectfully disagree on that one.

and i think it's pretty odd that you'd think two compensatory picks are better than what we have right now. there is no question that, if such picks could be traded, any team would offer up both their compensatory picks for one of the players you mentioned. and that wouldn't be worth enough to get any of them.

maybe i'm missing something here but the organization that we have in place has competed pretty successfully during jerry's tenure, especially in the last fifteen years. yes, there is going to have to be some rejiggering and so on throughout the organization (it's already being done). but i'm not so pessimistic to say that we can't compete sometime in the next decade.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 9:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

8? Where do you get 8?

My hopes are that the player development program gets more productive over the next 4-5 years and should bear fruits by 2013. But I have little faith in the players presently in the system (and thus able to trade), and I am pessimistic about the farm system's ability to develop young, cheap talent that will contribute to a contending ballclub over the next five seasons. If Reinsdorf devotes much more resources to player development as the Tigers have, that may change. There is less evidence of that happening than Reinsdorf giving a top-dollar contract to a slugger.

by asinwreck on Nov 12, 2007 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"at any time they are under Sox control"

that's what you wrote. the "top" players we have in our system right now likely wouldn't all appear until 2010 (and perhaps that's optimistic for guys like shelby and carter and so on); six years after that they would be under sox control. so that's where eight years come from - referring to guys like DLS and so on, obviously not danks and fields who already have their clock moving or will soon. sorry if i misstated your position.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, with 8 you get eggroll

Someone your age should know that, a-wreck.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Nov 13, 2007 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really care

who the Sox give up -- he's one of the guys I'd be willing to 'blow up the farm' for, unless the offer turns to being completely ludacris like Gio + DLS + Fields + Danks + ... -- which I guess could be a possiblilty. Florida doesn't have to trade him, they can hold onto him for another year and continue to field offers.

But Garland -- the prospects for Garland -- plus Fields, Gio and Owens/Anderson? In a heartbeat. Cabrera is a player you build around, and as he becomes eligible for free agency, I believe Contreras, Vazquez, Dye (team option) and Thome will all be coming off the books. I'd be fairly sure that if the Sox traded for him, a long-term extension wouldn't be too far behind.

Cabrera is a player you build around. He's 24 years old and is one of the top five players in baseball. I'm fairly certain he'd average 40 homers for the next six seasons playing half his games at US Cellular.

And maybe I'm putting too much trust in Ozzie here, but I'd have complete faith that Ozzie would keep Miggy in good playing shape.

by CWSKeith on Nov 11, 2007 10:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

lol

yeah. the sox are going to sign miguel cabrera to a long term deal. tell me another, keith.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, you're right Larry

Trading for superstars is stupid. I apologize for bringing it up, and will continue living as a tiny little minion in your world.

"Stupidest idea ever!" Congrats larry, you sure have that whole hyperbole thing down pat.

by CWSKeith on Nov 11, 2007 10:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you seem to misunderstand

the sox aren't going to do this. they aren't going to sign miguel cabrera long-term. they're not going to trade what would amount to their entire thin farm system/young talent for him. would it be great if the sox could/would do it? sure. but it's pie in the sky.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's all fine, larry

and if you just read a little bit:

you would've seen that I clarified my comment. But no, apparently the standard smug response was a better fit.

by CWSKeith on Nov 11, 2007 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's not a clarification

it still doesn't make sense if it's even half that price.

what will the team look like in two years? especially if you don't exend cabrera. it will be absolute horseshit. it will make this year look like an all-star squad. we simply don't have the depth in our system to even contemplate such a trade.

by larry on Nov 11, 2007 10:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course it's a clarification

I'm not in favor of the Sox sending their top five prospects/young players to Florida here, but for the package proposed in the article -- Gio, Fields, Owens and Garland (the prospects received from Garland, I should say) -- sure, why not?

And again -- if they traded for him, I'd tend to believe this would be a unique situation in which you'd see Jerry and co pull out their piggy banks and break 'em open wide for Miggy. 10/$300 for a player who is already a star, is just now entering his prime years and will only be 36 at the end of his deal? Especially when the Sox will have upwards of $30 million coming off of the books starting that year?

Larry, I will not let you ruin my fantastic night. I hope some of you caught the 'Hawks game, fucking fantastic effort. Toews and Kane are Chicago's best.

by CWSKeith on Nov 11, 2007 11:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"aren't" ain't "stupidest"

Signing an aging Torii Hunter would be stupid, yet something the Sox might do. Two utterly different concepts.

While I doubt the Sox could interest Florida in the pickings of what (as you say) is a thin array of young talent, I would not mind if for whatever reason the Marlins accepted the package Kenny offers.

by asinwreck on Nov 11, 2007 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

I disagree with Larry here. Gio could be great but he could also be a bust -- we just don't know yet. Fields is good but Cabrera makes him look like a scrub and Miggy would be replacing Fields at 3B in the long run anyways.

Also, people are just assuming that the prospect(s) we would trade for Cabrera would pan out. Meanwhile, Cabrera is a sure thing and the best young player in baseball. I guess I have more faith in Miguel Cabrera's major league stats than the White Sox scouting department.

Keith is right -- the Sox would have a lot of salary coming off the books. If they couldn't find the money to offer the best young player in baseball, we may as well stop being Sox fans because they would be the dumbest franchise in professional sports.

by SSH2005 on Nov 11, 2007 10:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

larry is being pragmatic

If this is a "when you wish upon a Star" site this conversation makes sense. As a realisitc and (generally) factually-based collection of opinions it is patently ridiculous. Yes, I said it. Ridiculous. Comparing the Joey Belle signing is very appropriate, too - look waht happened to the team. Why do you think JR hasn't sniffed at that type of signing since?

Also, I may be wrong, but I'd be concerned about MC Spammer's weight. Ozzie hasn't done such a great job of helping Uribe get svelte. You think because MC and Oz are fellow Venezuelans they speak the same language of discipline? Please.

I have nothing against Miggy - I wouln't sign A-Rod for those bucks and clean out the cupboard for 5-7 years, either.

Come back to Earth, folks. As Chappelle says, let's keep it real.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Nov 12, 2007 8:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

more tigers wheelin' and dealin'

cubs will (finally) trade jacque jones for omar infante. of course, we heard the deal was done with florida, too.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2007/11/cubs-close-to-d.html

presumably opens up center for pie. infante is pretty much a platoon guy but he does hit lefties decently, is obviously a better defender than jones at this point, can play more positions and costs less. jones is basically a one year stopgap (maybe less) before maybin is ready. the tigers would still probably platoon jones with raburn or thames in left.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 11:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

larry, wtf?

Here's the REAL news du jour:

"The Tigers also are working Monday to try to re-sign closer Todd Jones."

I was worried where Todd's next meal was coming from, and how he'll be paid in relation to his counterpart, Joe Borowski. No sleep! No sleep!

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Nov 12, 2007 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs also sent Detroit cash in the deal?

What an awful trade. Jock isn't very good but Infante is trash. He can only hit one pitch - the meatball fastball mistake pitch down the cock of the plate.

by SSH2005 on Nov 12, 2007 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think

the cubs acquired him to hit anything. he allows the cubs to carry one more masher on their bench.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

could they get anything better for jacques?

by The Wizard on Nov 12, 2007 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

judging by how long they shopped him

i'm guessing this is it. the last deal, IIRC, was a class A pitcher and a boatload of cash. left-fielders who can sort of hit are a dime a dozen.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yet, who have the Sox had in LF...

the past few seasons?

by SSH2005 on Nov 12, 2007 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he could sort of hit, too

just like mack could. they're all basically slightly below average players, all things considered, when they're healthy. the problem with most of them is that they never are for a full season. so that's why you get two of them and play them both. unfortunately, the sox didn't really do that. i'd bet the tigers aren't going to make such a mistake, though.

jones cost twice what pods did. i'd expect him to be a better player for that.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pods was working with arbitration money...

Jock was a free agent when he signed with the Cubs. That's a different story.

by SSH2005 on Nov 12, 2007 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's still money

doesn't matter how the number is reached. the dollars count the same in the budget.

by larry on Nov 13, 2007 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dayn (Dayn?) Perry opines

8. Jon Garland to the Brewers

"Given Ben Sheets' health issues, Dave Bush's struggles and Yovani Gallardo's youth, Milwaukee badly needs a regular in the rotation. Garland would give them that. In each of the past four seasons, Garland has worked at least 208.1 innings, and in each of the last three seasons he's posted a better-than-league-average ERA. Get him in the NL and out of hitter-friendly U.S. Cellular, and he'll look even better. Since the White Sox are starved for young talent, the Brewers should be able to accommodate. A package built around hitting prospect Mat Gamel figures to do the trick."

He also thinks Miggy goes to the Spanks.

So sayeth the Perry.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Nov 12, 2007 12:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

gamel's an interesting name

probably fits the bill of a B prospect. i'd like something closer to major league level, too, though.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mat? wtf?

Could his parents not afford the 2nd "t"?

What's the word on the Matster? And Bill Hall was not mentioned - can Dayn not read SSS?

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Nov 12, 2007 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

can't say i know much

looks like your average masher-type. little/no defense. will hit for power, can take a walk. probably give you a decent average, as well. with a guy like carter in the system, one could be concerned that you're getting too many no-defense, big bat types but i wouldn't be concerned about that considering they were both still in A ball. he's got good upside, though, in my opinion so he'd be a nice guy to take. but, like i said, i'd want a bit surer thing to be coming with.

perry is a chicago guy so he may have some more insight than most in this - though it's not exactly a secret that garland is on the block and milwaukee has been approached.

by larry on Nov 12, 2007 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs