Wow... I sure didn't see that one coming.

Very bold move by Kenny Williams.

Wow. So does this take Texas out of the Barry Zito market???

Buh?

McCarthy has some HR problems, I can't imagine Texas will be good for him.

I just don't get this deal at all. Why trade McCarthy, a young pitcher ready to join the rotation in 2007, for a guy in Danks, who despite his high draft position, had a four ERA in the minors? If you're going to deal McCarthy, who has to be viewed as a prime chip, at least strengthen a weakness. Why trade him for a pitching prospect? That makes no sense to me. Maybe they think more highly of Danks than I do, but I truly believe McCarthy, at worst, is going to be a quality number three/four over the duration of his career. Why give that up for Danks? Hell, even if Danks had a GREAT year in the minors last season, I still would have thought this trade was a risk. As it is, I see it as asinine.

I just don't see the logic of the move.

3. I doubt it; they would actually feature [on paper] an excellent rotation with Zito at the front in 2007. Zito, Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy... not bad.

Wow. So does this take Texas out of the Barry Zito market?
Who cares? It takes Javy Vazquez off the market!

Sam -

I seriously doubt it...Texas still needs someone to fill out the rotation.

Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, Tejeda, ??? - Zito fills that out quite well. Heck, McCarthy as a #4 and Tejeda as a #5 would be incredible...they'd be better than the #1 and #2 combo than at least 1 or 2 of the rotations the Rangers have thrown out in the past 7 or 8 years.

Zito and one more pretty good stick for the corner OF...I may regret not finding a way to put $20 on the Showalter theory yet.

If you're going to deal McCarthy, who has to be viewed as a prime chip, at least strengthen a weakness. Why trade him for a pitching prospect?

There could be another deal in the works, and that trading partner perhaps preferred Danks to McCarthy.

Who cares? It takes Javy Vazquez off the market!

Cross weeps.

9. Yeah, that is a good point, but why? I guess I'm just not that big of a Danks fan.

ezmw -

I suspect you're overlooking the other piece in the deal - Nick Masset. Jon-Boy is trading from a position of strength (!) as far as middle relievers go. Masset's got a big arm, and I suspect KW expects him to slot in either as the 7th or 8th inning guy in front of Jenks.

In addition, you're right that Danks' numbers aren't eye-popping. However, on numerous occasions Jamey Newberg (all hail the Ranger minor league guru) repeated that Danks was one of the youngest players in AAA last year. Given the Rangers' need for immediate help in the rotation as well as the TINSTAAPP principle, I prefer McCarthy, but it doesn't seem like a bad return (especially if Gavin Floyd can step up into the #5 hole).

BA thought Danks was almost ready, so how much downside is there really for Williams here? He trades a ready righty for a younger lefty who's almost ready and has possibly a higher ceiling, plus gets a top relief prospect too? Sounds good to me.

9. Yeah, that is a good point, but why? I guess I'm just not that big of a Danks fan.

The hypothetical trading partner -- particularly if it is a team like Tampa Bay -- might like the fact that Danks has no service time versus McCarthy's 1-1/4 years of service time.

this guy had me on the brink in roto ball--should I bench him,should i play him,gets hammered,does well,gets hammered again,put him on waivers,keep watching---don't know

leave the Sox able to swing a deal for an outfielder, perhaps with Tampa Bay, which wants young pitchers in return for one of its outfielders.

The White Sox could get Dukes or maybe Upton with a prospect package but they've already said that Baldelli and Crawford are completely off the market without young major league pitching involved.

The White Sox could get Dukes or maybe Upton with a prospect package

Dukes is the player I have in mind, actually, presuming that he can handle center field.

12. Yeah, I did overlook that guy a little bit. If he could be an eighth inning guy next season, than this is not a terrible deal, but still one I don't agree with. I can see now why Williams made the deal, as opposed to before, when I didn’t know what the hell he was thinking.

I still think it’s a win for Texas, especially because they got that kid Littleton locked and loaded for a full season. He is NASTY.

I suspect you're overlooking the other piece in the deal - Nick Masset. Jon-Boy is trading from a position of strength (!) as far as middle relievers go. Masset's got a big arm, and I suspect KW expects him to slot in either as the 7th or 8th inning guy in front of Jenks.

Absolutely, Masset is the key to the deal. Other than that trading McCarthy, a potential #2, for Danks, a potential # 3, is essentially a wash, I believe. Also, overlooked Jacob Rasner, who has a big arm and a fine natural sinker. Also, the Sox pick up a player with zero years of service for one with two-years on the 25-man roster.

I also wonder if the Sox are worried about McCarthy's mechanics. He's always struck me a Jack McDowell clone and, like Black Jack, seems to put a lot of strain on his elbow. That said, unlike Black Jack he gets his elbow higher during his delivery, theoretically lessening the strain.

As JH and Vince pointed out, it wouldn't be crazy to see another trade with Tampa for Baldelli (or less-likely Crawford).

Whether this works out or not, I'm quickly becoming convinced that Ken Williams is a GM genius. His organization does things differently than nearly ever other front office. To me, his moves the past two off-seasons have shown that his "baffling" (to me anyway) moves of the 2004-2005 off-season are a part of a much broader pattern. I'm really impressed with what he's become as a GM.

leave the Sox able to swing a deal for an outfielder, perhaps with Tampa Bay, which wants young pitchers in return for one of its outfielders.

The White Sox could get Dukes or maybe Upton with a prospect package but they've already said that Baldelli and Crawford are completely off the market without young major league pitching involved.

It would seem strange that the White Sox would trade McCarthy for Danks and then try to tempt TB. It would seem to me that McCarthy would be the more attractive player since he has some experience. TB already have a few minor league arms.

Sorta kinda. He has played there some in the minors but isn't really a CF, profiles much better as a corner guy. He's a great athlete and could play there if necessary but would almost certainly be below average, the Sox would be better off just replacing Podsednik with him and finding a different solution for CF.

Whether this works out or not, I'm quickly becoming convinced that Ken Williams is a GM genius. His organization does things differently than nearly ever other front office. To me, his moves the past two off-seasons have shown that his "baffling" (to me anyway) moves of the 2004-2005 off-season are a part of a much broader pattern. I'm really impressed with what he's become as a GM.

?? Genius might be overstating it a bit. Doing things differently can be good or bad - no one does things more differently than Bavasi. I do like how the WS are stockpiling arms - but as a general plan, I don't see anything particularly brilliant. If Gonzalez or Danks turn out to be front-line starters, then I defer to Williams' foresight.

Jim, thanks. I wasn't necessarily thinking that Dukes would be the every-day CF. I could see him making the club as the fourth outfielder this season, and part of his value, at first, would be the ability to handle CF. Then, if Sox fans are lucky, he outplays and replaces Pods. The Sox also took a NFI flyer on ... Terrero, is it? He may be the back-up CF.

Someone else brought up this possibility - could the White Sox make a late run for Zito?

You can't be a genius unless you worship at the alter of Moneyball! C'mon!

This seems like a great move to me. Pitching is a premium this year. I can see GMs lining up to Kenny Williams' door to kiss his ring ala "The Godfather." ("Someday - and that day may never come - I'll call upon you to trade your #1 prospect to me. But until that day, accept this young cheap pitcher in your playoff run.")

could the White Sox make a late run for Zito?

Meh, I doubt it. The Sox are having trouble resigning their own lefty in Buehrle, who's a FA after this season, so I don't see why they would make a run at another high-priced lefty.

The guy who does make sense, although I similarly doubt this will happen, is Clemens. It'd only be a one year commitment, and the Sox insist that they have money to spend, just that they haven't deemed anyone 'worthy' of that money yet. It would allow the Sox' new plethora of arms (Floyd, Sisco, Gonzalez, Danks, and to a lesser extent, Broadway and Haeger) to develop one more year at Charlotte.

Again -- the chances of it happening are very small, but it makes sense for the 2007 Sox to make a run at Clemens.

BTW -- I'm confused about Masset. Are the Sox profiling him as a starter or as a reliever?

Kenny Williams is slowly turning me into a Kenny Williams fan.

Again -- the chances of it happening are very small, but it makes sense for the 2007 Sox to make a run at Clemens.

I was thinking the same thing. I think they might deal another starter for pitching prospects after Zito signs. That'd free them of ~$20M which would allow them to make a huge 1-year offer with assurances that if they are out of it at the trade deadline that they'd deal him to his team of choice.

maybe it's KW(Clemenza) teaching Jon(Michael) how to make meatballs proper---in the kitchen--and then Kay calls

To clarify, I was using the term "genius" in the true definition of the term: an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work. I suppose that one might quibble with the word "natural" but the rest seems rather dead on to me.

BTW -- I'm confused about Masset. Are the Sox profiling him as a starter or as a reliever?

Keith, my understanding is that he would be a reliever.

The Sox are having trouble resigning their own lefty in Buehrle, who's a FA after this season, so I don't see why they would make a run at another high-priced lefty.

The guy who does make sense, although I similarly doubt this will happen, is Clemens. It'd only be a one year commitment, and the Sox insist that they have money to spend, just that they haven't deemed anyone 'worthy' of that money yet.

Couldn't Zito fill two roles here, though? For 2007, he'd fill out the rotation - Zito, Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, Vasquez would be a pretty sweet rotation. Then, from 2008 onward, Zito replaces Buerhle - if the Sox decide to go that way - by which time one of Floyd, Gonzalez, or Danks is likely ready to step into the fifth slot in the rotation.

Why did they want to trade away McCarthy?

In his ML Career he is 7-9 with a 4.39 ERA in 151.7 IP, with a 117/50 K/BB ratio (2.34:1). That equates out to 6.94 K/9 and 2.97 BB/9...both better than average.

He's going to be 24 next season, and not even arbitration eligilble?

Is there something I am clearly missing, like an injury problem?

White Sox fans, I am seriously asking, please tell me.

Danks is good. Forget the 4.24 ERA he posted in 140 IP in AA and AAA last year, that doesn't matter, what does is the 154/56 K/BB ratio (2.75:1) posted in the same span. That's a K/9 of 9.9, and a BB/9 of 3.6...very good indeed.

But McCarthy has performed at the MAJOR LEAGUE LEVEL. The minors mean nothing, and we all know that. There have been too many prospects that have posted even better numbers that Danks last year that sucked.

Nick Masset seems OK, and Jacob Rasner is super-young, but neither makes up the difference between McCarthy and Danks.

I'm hoping there is something I'm missing and somebody will make me aware of it, because otherwise this trade seems lopsided and not-well-thought out. Then again, I thought the same thing about the Podesednik-Lee trade from a few years back and the White Sox won the WS. Maybe I shouldn't question Kenny Williams.

The White Sox traded an arm in 2007 that they didn't need for one in 2009 that they think they will. They probably think Danks is the equal of McCarthy. I don't think there's a whole lot more to it than that. How this makes Kenny Williams a genius, I'm not sure.

I thought McCarthy was a surplus arm, one with a good deal of value. They dealt from a position of strength without addressing their weaknesses.

"Is there something I am clearly missing, like an injury problem?

White Sox fans, I am seriously asking, please tell me."

What you are missing is 1.78. That's the number of HRs per 9 innings pitched McCarthy has allowed during his (albeit short) major league career. McCarthy had a similar problem at Charlotte last season (1.21 HRs per 9 innings pitched).

I'm not suggesting that McCarthy can't succeed at the major league level, but to me the HR rate is a pretty big red flag.

Is there something I am clearly missing, like an injury problem?

No; I'm as dumbfounded as you are. Kenny has been preaching this whole offseason about not wanting to be stuck without a fifth starter, like the teams from 2001-2004 were. And now he goes and does this, leaving Charlie Haeger and Gavin Floyd as the two leading candidates for the #5 spot. Those names leave a heckuva lot to be desired, although looking at 2008 and beyond, the Sox are in a pretty good position with the arms they've built up.

The White Sox traded an arm in 2007 that they didn't need

An arm they didn't need? WTF are you talking about? McCarthy was all but penciled into the rotation for next year. He was one of THE reasons why the Sox even made the playoffs in 2005, as he was as dominant as Contreras down the stretch in about six starts.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think he'll ever be a top of the rotation guy, but I think he's a good bet to be a league average starter next year and a 105-115 ERA+ guy going forward.

Danks seems to be the left-handed version of McCarthy version 2004-2005 winter, ie almost but not quite ready for big league action. Both have similar repetiours (sp) -- fastball sitting in the low-to-mid 90s, good curveballs, and good changeups -- with the obvious difference of handed-ness.

I think the Sox got equal value back, it's just, I don't see how this trade makes any sense whatsoever for the 2007 season. We've gone from having one semi-big hole (no fourth OFer/platoon guy for Podsednik) to having two holes and a shaky (albeit deep) backend of the bullpen.

"I think the Sox got equal value back, it's just, I don't see how this trade makes any sense whatsoever for the 2007 season."

I agree with this, but let's remember: it's December. If the team goes into the '07 season with Floyd as the fifth starter and Podsednik the everyday LFer, I'll be disappointed. But I wouldn't count on that happening. I see nothing in Williams' past work to indicate that he's done dealing this off-season.

McCarthy tried to blind my daughter once so I hope he wilts under the Texas heat.

"McCarthy tried to blind my daughter once so I hope he wilts under the Texas heat.

Now THERE'S a story I'd like to hear.

Nate Silver's take at BP is here -- he's also troubled by McCarthy's homerun rate.

Now THERE'S a story I'd like to hear.

I told the full story here in the summer, but I can't seem to find it. Anyway, we were sitting behind the bullpen in Skydome and McCarthy was trying to throw a piece of Dubble Bubble gum to a Sox fan about 15 feet away from us and he whipped it right into the eye of my 3 year old daughter. It was quite scary for a few minutes until she was clearly okay. Perhaps as scary for McCarthy as it was for us ("Oh my God -- what have I done"). He gave us a ball signed by everyone in the bullpen as recompense.

A high home run rate doesn't necessarily mean a guy will fail to be an ace caliber Major League pitcher. It's all a question of how he manages his other weaknesses. Does he give up a bevy of hits? Walks? Any two combination of those items combined with a high home run rate should raise a red flag, not just the dingers alone. Look at Josh Beckett. If he had better control, his massive allowance of home runs would be more forgivable.

How strong are McCarthy’s other numbers? If he has great control and doesn’t allow a surplus of hits, he’ll be fine, despite allowing home runs.

I believe [not sure] Curt Schilling led the National League in home runs allowed circa. 2001.

Is not the Chicago park almost as much of a joke as the one in Texas?

I think Kenny Williams rocks.

WAILING AND LAMENTATION!

McCarthy probably had more value than this. When put in the rotation, he pitched excellently. There was one problem with McCarthy, and one problem only: when his changeup isn't working he gets taken deep quite often.

That's it. Otherwise, he's an exceptional starter. When he has his changeup working he's the Sox's best. I think this trade stinks, and I don't think we're getting equal value back in return.

Now, Williams may have targeted Danks and Masset, but I still think we could have named our price for McCarthy and gotten it. If this were the return why not just trade McCarthy for Baldelli, or McCarthy and Fields for Crawford?

What a bad deal. And a completely unexpected bad deal, which is the worst kind.

The Phone Booth or whatever the hell it's called has had park factors only one point lower than Insurance Stadium or whatever the hell it's called in each of the last two seasons. With road games in Anaheim, Oakland and Seattle instead of Kansas City and Minnesota, Texas might actually be a better team to pitch for than the White Sox are.

McCarthy was trying to throw a piece of Dubble Bubble gum to a Sox fan about 15 feet away from us and he whipped it right into the eye of my 3 year old daughter.

KW must've been concerned about his wildness.

A high home run rate doesn't necessarily mean a guy will fail to be an ace caliber Major League pitcher. It's all a question of how he manages his other weaknesses.

Crap, you can say this about any aspect of a pitcher. But on a macro scale, giving up lots of homers sucks.

An arm they didn't need? WTF are you talking about? McCarthy was all but penciled into the rotation for next year. He was one of THE reasons why the Sox even made the playoffs in 2005, as he was as dominant as Contreras down the stretch in about six starts.

I think if you have four solid, reliable starters as the White Sox do, you don't need to worry so much about the fifth. Obviously, it's better to have a good fifth starter than a bad one, but if I'm a GM of such a team and think that I can upgrade the talent level of my team significantly by giving up my fifth starter, I do it every time.

His organization does things differently than nearly ever other front office. To me, his moves the past two off-seasons have shown that his "baffling" (to me anyway) moves of the 2004-2005 off-season are a part of a much broader pattern. I'm really impressed with what he's become as a GM.

This is doubtless true, and is a major factor in my belief that GMs should be judged not by their philosophies but by their results. KW had a big old bullseye on Gavin Floyd, Nick Masset, Gio Gonzalez and John Danks. In the past when KW has tagged a player with a bullseye they've worked out. The most recent returns being, in reverse chronological order: Matt Thornton, Javier Vazquez, Jim Thome, Freddy Garcia and Jose Contreras. That's not a bad crew, discounting Vazquez. And I still think Vazquez could pull out a great season...one of these years, he's bound to.

Kenny Williams is slowly turning me into a Kenny Williams fan.

That's just because he's dealing for prospects, which are valuable to the BTF crew. Me, I prefer good young MLB pitchers to prospects, always.

Is there something I am clearly missing, like an injury problem?

White Sox fans, I am seriously asking, please tell me.

No. In fact, you're seriously underrating him because his career numbers take into account his time in the bullpen and his disastrous starts at the beginning of 2005. Since the 2005 ASB he's been on fire in his starts, the best pitcher the White Sox have had. The only mechanism I can offer to explain the discrepency between his starts and bullpen numbers--without resorting to luck, which is a weak explanation--is that starts McCarthy utilizes his changeup, which makes him a 3 pitch pitcher instead of a 2 pitch pitcher and makes him much more effective.

I like Kenny trading for prospects, but not at the expense of his most valuable commodity. If he trades away a blue chipper he should at least fill a hole, like, say, LEFT FIELD OR CENTER FIELD, WHICH TOGETHER CAN NO LONGER BE TERMED "HOLES," BUT ARE RATHER CLOSER TO BEING DESCRIBED AS "GAPING CHASMS THREATENING TO DOOM THE WHITE SOX'S 2007 SEASON."

Maybe I shouldn't question Kenny Williams.

This may be a good idea. Applying logic and rational thought to KW moves just raises your blood pressure. Better to kick up your feet in the passenger seat and enjoy the ride. I just wish I understood the moves better.

Then again, if I understood them KW wouldn't be exploiting some market inefficiency in building the team's he has.

"Reliable" isn't a word I'd use to describe Javier Vazquez.

I think if you have four solid, reliable starters as the White Sox do, you don't need to worry so much about the fifth. Obviously, it's better to have a good fifth starter than a bad one, but if I'm a GM of such a team and think that I can upgrade the talent level of my team significantly by giving up my fifth starter, I do it every time.

The White Sox don't have four, solid, reliable starters. They have four starters who could be solid and reliable but weren't last season. That's not the same thing. This is a good example of why the designations #1, #2 starter are stupid and counterproductive. All starting pitchers play the same position and it makes no difference what you call them. You don't trade Brandon McCarthy just because he's your fifth starter because those games count the same amount in the standings. The Blue Jays missed the playoffs last year solely because of their fifth starters.

Moreover I don't see how this trade improves the talent level of the team. There is only one known variable in this equation and that is that The White Sox are worse next season. If Danks ends up better than McCarthy it's a defensible move but if they are the same or worse then this is a disaster.

I'm very surprised that more fans aren't upset with Kenny Williams. Barring further moves he's punted this season by actively downgrading his team. There are times to do this but considering that the teams best hitters are all old this is very bad timing for the White Sox.

Kenny Williams takes action. With no doubt, sometimes those don't work out very well like Vasquez for Chris Young. Neither disappointed, but it was the belief that Brian N. Anderson would look like a major league hitter in CF and make Young tradable.

I like the move as Danks and Masset give the White Sox two zero-service pitchers. McCarthy is a proven major leaguer though, and that is likely why Williams got Masset and likely why Daniels was willing to give him.

Does Rob Neyer have a Charlie Haeger column up yet?

Fake Teams

Who the hell needs a pitcher who can't throw gum accurately? Imagine what he'd do with a real baseball.

Barring further moves he's punted this season by actively downgrading his team.

Has he? I don't see it. If Charlie Haeger can step in and do a decent job in the fifth starter's role (and I think he can), they're in no worse shape for 2007 than they were in 2006, and they're in light-years' better shape for 2008 and beyond, at which point we'll just have to see whether Danks or McCarthy have the better career.

We'll just have to see how it plays out. For the short term, the Sox are depending on Buehrle and Contreras. If they're mediocre or worse again next year, nothing else that Ken Williams does this winter will matter, at least for this upcoming season.

We'll just have to see how it plays out. For the short term, the Sox are depending on Buehrle and Contreras. If they're mediocre or worse again next year, nothing else that Ken Williams does this winter will matter, at least for this upcoming season.

This has been something I've tried to keep in mind the whole winter. No matter what the Sox did this winter, the 2007 season will ultimately come down to whether the guys in the rotation bounce back. Right or wrong, they believe that...

-Mark Buehrle will be the pitcher he was from 2001-first-half-of-2006, not the guy we saw in the second half of 2006.

-Jose Contreras, if healthy, will pitch like an ace. I don't want to turn this into the semantics of what an 'ace' means, but they believe that (so long as he is healthy) he'll pitch like he did in 2005.

-Jon Garland is a happy medium between his 2005 and his 2006.

-Javy Vazquez' real ERA will be a duplicate of his yearly DIPS ERA.

As an organization, they also have a tremendous amount of faith in their coaches, Don Cooper in particular. They're clearly banking on him to help guys like Floyd, Sisco, and to a lesser extent Danks and Masset, realize their potential.

That's just because he's dealing for prospects, which are valuable to the BTF crew. Me, I prefer good young MLB pitchers to prospects, always.

Not really; hell, Kenny just traded a young, pre-arb SP who has some success in the majors. That is probably more valuable to "the BTF crew".

Kenny seems to have some balls. I like that he seems to be going against what many teams are doing. I mean, it's not like he just signed Gil Meche for $55 million or Carlos Lee for $100 million. Of course, his past ballsy moves have resulted with Chris Young in AZ, Javy Vazquez in CHI, and, oh yeah, a World Series title in 2005.

Just saying I'm digging his recent (2004-present) moves.

The guy that sponsored McCarthy's BB-Ref page is gonna be needing to edit his message.

Having looked more carefully at Danks and Masset since my earlier posts today, I no longer think this trade is a clear robbery by John Daniels. Danks clearly has upside, and Masset looks like a sleeper to help the pen next year. What I wonder about: what precipitated the decision to move McCarthy so early in his arb life? Is Silver up to something when he suggests that the ChaSox coaching staff has pretty much had it with him (calling McCarthy uncoachable)? Might be.

Still, gotta admit Kenny W has some cojones.

Having looked more carefully at Danks and Masset since my earlier posts today, I no longer think this trade is a clear robbery by John Daniels

That's my view of the trade: a clear win for the White Sox.

I understand why the Rangers pulled the deal - McCarthy is a surer bet. He will give the Rangers at least 100IP of solid pitching.

But I like Danks the most of the 3 key players. Any time you can get a lefty who Ks around 10/9IP, and you don't have to give up a central piece of your team, you do it. With Gonzalez and Danks, the White Sox now have 2 of those potential aces.

The White Sox are still strong in the rotation, but now KW will have to figure out how to get an OFer as it would appear that he is running out of trading pieces.

-Mark Buehrle will be the pitcher he was from 2001-first-half-of-2006, not the guy we saw in the second half of 2006.

I hadn't realized how odd a season Buehrle had:

Mo. K/9 K/BB ERA WHIP
Apr 3.1 2.4 2.57 0.89
May 4.1 1.4 3.18 1.54
Jun 4.1 1.7 3.89 1.30
Jul 5.1 3.0 11.48 1.95
Aug 5.5 2.9 4.34 1.34
Sep 4.1 1.9 6.67 1.87

He had a much better K/9 and K/BB in the second half, but his ERA and WHIP skyrocketed. Also, his HR/9 jumped from 0.97 to 2.34. Did he look like a completely different pitcher in July, August and September?

The White Sox are still strong in the rotation, but now KW will have to figure out how to get an OFer

[Eric Byrnes]

Put me in Coach
I'm ready to play today
Put me in Coach
I'm ready to play today
Look at me
I can be
Centerfield

[/Eric Byrnes]

Not demanding Freddy Garcia in exchange anymore, Levski?

Eric Byrnes

I hear the Phillies are shopping Jon Lieber now that they have Freddy Garcia. If you're not interested in Lieber I'll give you Scott Podsednik for Byrnes. How's that?

Not demanding Freddy Garcia in exchange anymore, Levski?

Well, I'd probably settle for Freddy Krueger.

The Phillies supposedly want a setup reliever for Lieber. I wouldn't give up one for Lieber.

Scott Podsednik is probably the only guy on the White Sox I would NOT take for Eric Byrnes.

At best, Hairston wins the LF job, and Byrnes makes the perfect 4th outfielder in the desert.

At some point, perhaps JByrnes will accept EByrnes as a sunk cost and see what Hairston can do as the starter - with EByrnes as the reserve OFer.

That's sort of what I'm hoping Willie will do with Green and Milledge.

Why not just make Lieber the reliever? He's probably one of the pitchers who could throw quite a bit harder as one, and he sucked as a starter last year, so why not?

Actually, I know for sure that JByrnes has been shopping EByrnes around, but hasn't found a deal he likes. He's also stopped shopping Hairston, as he hasn't found a trade he thought was worth. At this point, I think both Byrnes and Hairston are still on the team next spring training. It appears that DaVanon may not be ready for the start of the regular season, so Byrnes AND Hairston may be getting plenty of at bats... which might be the best thing for the Dbacks...

Oh, and Raski, if JByrnes thought EByrnes was a sunk cost, he could've just non-tendered him a few days ago. EByrnes clearly has value, as a rather overpaid 4th outfielder, or as a slightly overpaid left-fielder, if Hairston can't cut it there. But he certainly isn't a sunk cost.

I don't see Leiber being effective in any relief role in which he'd face LHB.

Why would Byrnes be a sunk cost? He's a more than adequate option at CF if the Diamnondbacks decide that Young needs some seasoning in AAA. I know he's a stud prospect, but he didn't exaclty tear things up in his short stint at the big league level. Zona could always deal Byrnes later in the season.

If the Marlins weren't so cheap, Byrnes would be a good pickup for them.

Russlan, that's another comment I forgot to add. EByrnes is the only player on the 40 man roster right now who can play good defense in CF and RF (aside from Young/Quentin) AND hit well enough to not be an embarrassment if penciled in at those positions. As you pointed out, he's insurance if CYoung struggles out of the gate (I certainly hope he won't) or if Hairston fails to impress in the spring (I certainly hope he will). Btw, Young never got enough consistent at bats to show what he could do last year. I'm super high on him.

EByrnes clearly has value, as a rather overpaid 4th outfielder, or as a slightly overpaid left-fielder, if Hairston can't cut it there. But he certainly isn't a sunk cost.

Whoops, apparently you read my sunk costs comment as advocating waiving him. I mean sunk cost as in not playing him over Hairston. You know what you'll get out of Byrnes, good defense and a 750-800 OPS bat. Hairston is still improving. For a team like the D-backs, it makes more sense to explore the ceiling of Hairston rather than fill in the hole with Byrnes. Use Byrnes as the overpaid 4th OFer until injury or if one of the youngsters struggles.

gack... I certainly hope Hairston will impress... time for bed.

white sox fans, pardon the interruption. those mets fans goading dbacks fans on white sox threads..

For a team like the D-backs, it makes more sense to explore the ceiling of Hairston rather than fill in the hole with Byrnes. Use Byrnes as the overpaid 4th OFer until injury or if one of the youngsters struggles.

Right now, it looks like this is what will happen after all.

Fwiw, Russlan, the Marlins would be smart to trade one of their spare pitchers for Chris Denorfia

Btw, Young never got enough consistent at bats to show what he could do last year. I'm super high on him.

I'm very high on the D-backs future as a whole. Webb/Drew/Young/Montero are a heck of a cornerstone. Imagine if they had kept Uggla? Wow. I love the "peripheral" guys too - Quentin/Gonzalez/Upton/Jackson/Tracy. I can't fathom how that group won't win at least a couple of division titles.

I know... it's a shame that the NL West is being given over to non-aesthetically-pleasing division winnes for the forseeable future.

Here's something interesting:

McCarthy's K/9 and BB/9, 2006: 7.5, 3.6
Barry Zito's: 6.2, 4.0

Now, the HR-rate's a lot different, but put Zito in Chicago and his is a lot higher. The Rangers might have just got a better pitcher than their $100 million Barry.

also leave the Sox able to swing a deal for an outfielder, perhaps with Tampa Bay, which wants young pitchers in return for one of its outfielders

I just want to echo Jim W.'s comments. Dukes is definitely available and Upton may be as well, but Andrew Friedman has stated on several occasions that the Rays won't be looking to trade any of their MLB talent (i.e., Crawford, Baldelli, Kazmir, etc.) without getting MLB-proven young talent in return.

Of course, whether he'll stand behind those comments remains to be seen, but I'd be willing to guess (purely a guess) that he's already turned down a few offers of prospects for Crawford or Baldelli.

As for McCarthy/Danks, Masset -- I agree with Tony Jack's observation that Masset seems to be the key to the deal, but I still think it's a headscratcher. I'm guessing that Williams is being absolutely roasted by the Chicago media and White Sox faithful.

I'm guessing that Williams is being absolutely roasted by the Chicago media and White Sox faithful.

There's a Rogers column and a Mariotti column on the sidebar, both calling Kenny Williams the biggest idiot ever.

Trading your potential for someone else's potential (and McCarthy is still potential) is always a huge risk, because nobody remembers the trades you didn't make. The tendency is always to hold on to the young guys you've got unless you can get something proven in return. The Thome trade, last winter, was a classic trade of prospects for proven talent, and got kudos from the hoi polloi.

I don't know if this trade will work out, but I've got to admire Williams for going against conventional wisdom. If McCarthy goes on to become a perennial All-Star, this trade will haunt him for the rest of his career, but this could also be a spectacular success and make him look like a genius. I've decided to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I wanted Elijah Dukes for my team, the Blue Jays, but then I thought how well he'd get along with John Gibbons, and well, it wouldn't be pretty. I'm pretty sure someone would be paralyzed within the first week. Oh well.

Here's something interesting:

McCarthy's K/9 and BB/9, 2006: 7.5, 3.6
Barry Zito's: 6.2, 4.0

Now, the HR-rate's a lot different, but put Zito in Chicago and his is a lot higher. The Rangers might have just got a better pitcher than their $100 million Barry.

Zito 2006
Road 9 HR - 112 innings
Home 18 HR - 109 innings

McCarthy 2006
Road 16 HR - 82 innings
Home 14 HR - 69.2 innings

Of course these stats suffer from the sample size issue of being a single season, but nothing in them leads one to think that Zito's HR rate benefited from his home park, or that McCarthy's HR problems have anything to due to his home park. In fact, Zito's career HR rate is higher at home than on the road.

So my bet is that whatever magic Zito uses that makes him a front line starter, would work as well in a Texas uniform as anywhere, and that whatever problems McCarthy has with giving up HRs, are going to continue in Texas. Of course due to their relative ages, McCarthy is likely to improve and Zito is not.

Where did it all go wrong?

Remember those comments about Brandon's heart not being in it as a reliever? At the time I thought it was an odd thing for a GM to say, and that there may be more behind the story than we were hearing. Maybe for some reason Kenny just plain doesn't like Brandon.

For those who don't think this trade affects (or was influenced by) the Rangers' pursuit of Zito, here is how Daniels was quoted last night, after the trade, re Zito:

"At this point I'm not optimistic about that," Daniels said. "I don't really want to get into specifics of our conversations, other than to say I'm not terribly encouraged by our chances."

At the very least, this trade gives the Rangers more leverage in negotiations, since they aren't as desperate to add a starter as they were 24 hours ago. If that keeps them from going nuts with their offer, it could well keep a bunch of other teams in the running.

"Maybe for some reason Kenny just plain doesn't like Brandon."

It's pretty obvious to me that he doesn't, and it's been obvious for quite some time. Consider that McCarthy pitched very well as a starter toward the end of '05. And yet...

-he didn't pitch at all in the '05 postseason (wasn't even on the postseason roster); and

-while it was assumed that he'd be the team's #5 starter in '06, the White Sox traded away their best prospect for Vazquez, so HE could be the #5 starter.

"-while it was assumed that he'd be the team's #5 starter in '06, the White Sox traded away their best prospect for Vazquez, so HE could be the #5 starter."

Doesn't this deal still look bad? I guess it's still early, and I haven't looked closely at the matter, but all the Kenny Williams love still strikes me as questionable.

However much genius the World Series confers, and however much I like this deal, it's amazing to me how badly Williams was had in the Vazquez/Young trade.

"Doesn't this deal still look bad?"

By "this deal," do you mean Young for Vazquez? It certainly didn't go well for the White Sox last year, as they became the last in a long line of teams to think that Vazquez would perform well for them. Next year? Who knows.

"I guess it's still early, and I haven't looked closely at the matter, but all the Kenny Williams love still strikes me as questionable."

Let me put it this way: Young hasn't done anything at the major league level yet, and if he does, he'll be among the first players traded by Williams to do anything at the major league level.

I think if you look closely (or even not so closely) at what Williams did the last two offseasons, the "Kenny Williams love" won't strike you as questionable at all.

However much genius the World Series confers, and however much I like this deal, it's amazing to me how badly Williams was had in the Vazquez/Young trade.

That happens to World Series-winning genius GM's sometimes. Just ask Theo about Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the Beinfest gets you . . . .

and if he does, he'll be among the first players traded by Williams to do anything at the major league level.

Not if. When.

"it's amazing to me how badly Williams was had in the Vazquez/Young trade."

It's amazing to me that people would decide Arizona won that trade when the key player they acquired has yet to do anything at the major league level. You'll forgive me, but White Sox fans have been down this road before. Hop in the Wayback Machine and set coordinates for July 27, 2004, when Williams was reamed for trading those two megastars Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo in order to get Freddy Garcia. Posters around here are to prospects like grizzled old sportswriters are to proven veterans.

I think if you look closely (or even not so closely) at what Williams did the last two offseasons, the "Kenny Williams love" won't strike you as questionable at all.

I've looked closely - it's still questionable. But I guess since love is a subjective trait conferred by the fan of his own free will, there's no way to judge. To an outsider, it is strange though - in a why do housewives love Regis Philbin kind of way. [ducks]

That happens to World Series-winning genius GM's sometimes. Just ask Theo about Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the Beinfest gets you.

It's a humbling business, no doubt. I prefer to remember that deal as 25-year-old World Series MVP ace and an All-Star 3B due for a big bounceback for a shortstop who translated his tools into encouraging minors stats exactly once (and not in the most recent season) a promising TINSTAAP with possible health flags and a fungible reliever or two. But whatareyagonnado?

It's amazing to me that people would decide Arizona won that trade when the key player they acquired has yet to do anything at the major league level. You'll forgive me, but White Sox fans have been down this road before. Hop in the Wayback Machine and set coordinates for July 27, 2004, when Williams was reamed for trading those two megastars Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo in order to get Freddy Garcia. Posters around here are to prospects like grizzled old sportswriters are to proven veterans.

Comment saved for late-2006 time capsule. I agree: Let's dig this up in a year or two and see if you still feel this way...

It's amazing to me that people would decide Arizona won that trade when the key player they acquired has yet to do anything at the major league level. You'll forgive me, but White Sox fans have been down this road before. Hop in the Wayback Machine and set coordinates for July 27, 2004, when Williams was reamed for trading those two megastars Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo in order to get Freddy Garcia.

You're right in that we do need to wait until Young spends some time in the majors - but it sure is looking bad for Williams right now.

"Not if. When."

You believe some prospects are 100% sure things? That's cute. Don't forget to leave your stocking out for Santa!

You believe some prospects are 100% sure things? That's cute. Don't forget to leave your stocking out for Santa!

I'm expressing a strong opinion, not a probablistic warranty. I believe that prospects who've accomplished what Chris Young has accomplished, at the age and levels at which he's accomplished it, and who play the way I see him play and the way scouts describe his play, are as close to a sure thing as there is in baseball. That better?

If "sure thing" means the same as saying that Travis Hafner, Derek Jeter, or some other established major leaguer is a "sure thing," then yes, some prospects are sure things. There's no such thing as a "100% sure thing;" that would only be possible in a world with no injuries and no passage of time.

"Let's dig this up in a year or two and see if you still feel this way..."

Well, if Young does turn into a good player, I assume I then get to invoke the "darn luck!" excuse (sometimes known as the "Uggla Excuse" or the "Hanley Excuse"). That's not reserved just for "Moneyball" and/or young, white, Ivy League-educated GMs, is it?

You believe some prospects are 100% sure things? That's cute. Don't forget to leave your stocking out for Santa!

I don't believe that, no. But then, I don't believe any current major leaguers are "100% sure things," either. #### happens, careers founder, guys suddenly stop hitting . . . .

"100% sure thing" isn't the right standard for expressing an opinion. And there's no moratorium on expressing one just because a player is still a prospect.

Well, if Young does turn into a good player, I assume I then get to invoke the "darn luck!" excuse (sometimes known as the "Uggla Excuse" or the "Hanley Excuse"). That's not reserved just for "Moneyball" and/or young, white, Ivy League-educated GMs, is it?

Yes, absolutely you get to. But why so bitter?