Let's do this with Texas:

Ramirez, Williamson (or Kim), Lester and 3 million

for,

A-Rod and Michael Young.

Nomar for Mota, an A prospect and a AA guy.

Sign Jose Guillen for right field and move Trot to left.

Kim or Williamson can be our fifth starter.

Yes your correct, Dec 20th is the date non tendered players become available and barring a trade Theo said that's when 2b will be filled. As for Tex taking Kim, they would do it because he is a solid vey young (25-27 I forget exact age) pitcher. Eventhough they want to go cheap, they lost a lot of players this off season so they need a good arm to help the younger guys. I don't like Kim and am glad it looks like they will take him. Keeping Williamson would be smart to compete for a #5 job (if Perez isn't aquired and slipped into the rotation) and if not we have a back up for Foulke if we bring Keith into a ties game in the 8th and it stays tied heading into the 10th.

I am still not sold on Kim. He really makes me nervous, especially in a big spot. I would rather keep Williamson and include BK in the deal.

This is the only deal I've heard that would compell me to even consider giving money to Tex because of all the return we would get ie. Young and Mota along with prospects. I don't know if its been discussed but it's not a bad idea. Maybe chop the number to 2 mill over the first 2 years of the deal and it would work.

As would I. As would I.

Caspir-- I edited the deal.....Texas can juxtapose between Kim or Willy-- I know Kim is a headcase, but he is a talented 24 year old. Willliamson would be a nice addition to the rotation and he WANTS to be here, so if they take Kim, I'd be happy.

I heard it somewhere, that Showalter really likes BK and his versatility. Hopefully Texas will want him instead of Williamson.

Has anybody heard about possible 2ndbase nontenders?

Marlon Anderson.

Anyone know Ronnie Belliard's story?

I seriously doubt that Texas will give up Young and A-Rod, their middle infield in the same deal. I think the reason you don't trade Kim to Texas is because you could easily get a decent 2b type for him and some much needed savings. That way, you can keep Odalis Perez (LHP) in the rotation. Your staff would look something like

SP Pen
Pedro Arroyo
Schill Williamson
Lowe Timlin
Perez Embree
Wake Foulke

Given the fact that LA knows we'd have to get rid of Nomar, I don't see them giving a young relief stud like Mota and two prospects. Besides, how many of the "prospects" that are included in these deals ever pan out......Keep your own, grow your own.

No thanks!

Marlon Anderson career #'s

BA .267

OBP .316

OPS .698

OPS+ 82

Any shot that the Sox make a run @ VLADDY? He wants to play in a place with a large Dominican contingency - or at least Latino in general. We have Pedro, Ortiz, maybe AROD, maybe they can make a pitch for him to sign here??

Anyhow, I want the AROD deal to go down, but I do not want to give Nomar away. Nomar for OHudson [through LA] is disgusting. If we can not get fair value for him, keep him, and let him walk after '04. The only way I can see letting him go for nothing is if Theo is telling us he is getting VLADDY as well...otherwise we leave a big hole in that 3-4 spot.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...1778610,00.html

I don't see any scenario where the Sox could/would get Vladimir Guerrero, for three reasons. One, if they don't land A-Rod they would be having to much money tied up for to long in the outfield. Two, if they do land A-Rod they would have to much money tied up in two players for to long. Finally, I really do not think Vlad likes or wants the spotlight. From all accounts he wouldn't be a good fit personality wise in Boston and I think it would end up being Manny II as far as the non talking, aloof superstar deal is concerned. He will probably end up in Baltimore or somewhere where it's quiet. What about his back? He has bad serious back issues and that swing doesn't help!

Prospects are what they are for the Boston Red Sox: Trading chips.

The Manny like issues and that back are enough to scare me away.

Your also right about tying up that much long term money for two players. Vlad/ARod could end up costing the Sox 42-45 million annually.

Apparently now (according to this artilce), "...Rangers owner Tom Hicks has the leverage..."

I don't see how...I'm really opting for the "Keep Manny and Nomar" option!

Here's the link:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/7495228.htm

I think Gil Leberton needs to put down the eggnog for a second and look at the big picture. The Rangers have the leverage? WTF? If this deal doesn't happen, we're "forced" to make do with Manny Ramirez and Nomar Garciaparra. Boo hoo. I don't know how we'll be able to live with their 60 HRs and 200+ RBIs next year. What in the world shall we do? Hicks really has us over the proverbial barrel there. Wow...I never looked at it that way. </sarcasm>

And the Rangers? If this doesn't happen they're still paying A Rod's salary, with absolutely no room to go get pitching help, and they're praying Chan Ho Park earns his ridiculous salary.

I think this guy is trying to convince people in Boston that the deal has to happen more than anything else.

Hicks won't be laughing when he finds a giant bar of soap in his coffee! mwahahahaha



er....

They could also end up hitting 42-45HRs per year each.

I am just saying that if you are gonna lock up 2 guys long term [non-pitchers] in MLB these would be the 2 to lock up.

Exactly. I think it's time to move away from this A Rod thing. Get a servicable second baseman (either via a trade or a non-tender type) and my team's on the field.

I agree as far as if your going to lock up two position players, Vlad and A-Rod would certainley be at the top of the list even considering the back issue with Vlad. My only issue with that is the money part of it. It is risky enough, regarding injuries, having one guy tied up long term for big dollars since MLB contracts are guaranteed; you only increase the risk of that happening with two of them. You should spend that money on pitching, there is enough offense even with losing Nomar and Manny while "only" getting A-Rod in return. Attempting to sign Vlad/A-Rod is a risk versus reward thing. Given the production we had last year, I don't think the risk is worth the reward. I think we'd still have one of the top 3 offenses in the league even after subtracting Nomar and Manny, and adding A-Rod.

Does anyone know any viable 3rd baseman candidates available or attainable thus moving Mueller to 2nd? Also, what about trying to get Ponson?

According to rotowire Ponson has been offered a contract from the CWS, but he hasn't signed anything yet. I'd be surprised if the Sox made a run at him.

As for viable 3Bs, I'm not sure if that's the direction the Sox want to go in. Moving Mueller to 3rd might make some sense, but he does have a history of knee problems and 2nd is a position that puts strain on the legs (more ground to cover, continually making the turn in the DP). Also, Youks is probably a year away from coming up to Boston, so I'd be surprised if they brought in a 3B.

Thinking that the Sox will sign Vlad after trading Nomar is a fantasy and just won't happen. The whole point of trading for Arod and trading Nomar is to save money, not increase their payroll. Especially when they are negotiating an extension for Pedro and Ortiz and have upcoming issues with Lowe, Varitek and Nixon.

With the deletion of Willaimson and addition of Kim to the deal I think this would work out great for all sides. I don''t like Kim but he has upside and is young. This is a good deal IMO

I agree with Caspir (yay!). This deal is definately much better than anything proposed, and in this case, I'd probably be too delirious to argue for Kim. Has Mota been mentioned in any of the trade talks? I would've rather had him than Perez when OP's name was popping up all over the place mainly because another trade further decreases the value of the first trade (Nomar).

3 million per still gives me pause...Maybe if we can convince Hicks to 3 million flat.

Loosley related topic, but should anything be announced, what web site will break the news first?

Some nominees:
1) http://www.bostondirtdogs.com/
2) http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/wiremenu (Spiezio to Mariners!)
3) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/index
4) This forum!

Any others?

What are the WARP/PECOTA numbers for Vlad again?

Glenn Ordway was just on WEEI and was somewhat cryptic, but he said that his "moles" were telling him that something was going on with the ARod trade.

And that it may get done by this afternoon.

And, Gammons on the Dan Patrick show saying ARod will be a Red Sox within 36 hours.

Ordway now?

I think we all need to step back. Every reporter, columnist or wanna be reporter has reported this deal every which way possible. Rumor Chiefton himself Gammons has gone from "very likely to long shot...to dead...to life support...to getting closer...to a definate maybe".

And the frustrating thing is that there doesn't have to be any accountability. Does anyone think either of the stooges Tanguay or Dickerson will comment on thier big scoop last Friday that Foulke was staying in Oakland? Of course not. These guys (in the sports media) are way off consistently and are not expected to be accountable to anyone.

Hell if the news media could operate like this it would be Kaos. Imagine if a Times or Globe reporter did a story saying "Bin Ladin has been killed"....only to have it proven false. The guy would be fired. Not comparing baseball to world issues, just the accountability measures that are applied to the journalists in each field.

rsb

Good lord...did Gammons actually say that? How the hell does this guy maintain any credibility? He has been scoffing at the deal for a week now pronouncing it dead...and now he says "A-Rod's a Sox by tomorrow".

I quit.

rsb

Not if it was reported as a hot stove rumor.

Quitting?
I thought we were just getting warmed up?

He covers all sides and when something happens, he has predicted it. The majority of baseball fans that don't see his style think he is amazing.

Gammons case is a little different from other reporters because he is most likely getting his info straight from the sources, and is regurgitating everything said to him. His reporting on the status of the deal (as told to him by Sox brass) is helping the Sox get it done. In the end, if this deal is made Gammons will be just as big a part of the negotiations as Sox management.

My source says that it should be announced later today - tomorrow at the latest.

Does your source have any other info, or just that a deal's going down?

Gammons part of the negotiations? As much as Sox Mgmt? Huh? Over the past 4 weeks, my respect for Gammons has gone from 5% to 0%.


My post from Friday bears repeating:

It's one thing to say "negotiations are turning cold today". It's a completely different thing to say (in my best Gammons voice)

"Look, this negotiation is turning cold and is just not going to happen."

The real news is "negotiation turning cold", but Gammons always tries to fabricate news by extrapolating and predicting the outcome. It's bad journalism and he does it all the time. If he was breaking news for a non-entertainment news outlet, his reports would have to carry the label "commentary". And journalists experienced enough to earn "commentary time" usually have either the knowledge or the backbone to stand by their position, which Gammons does not.
Peter Gammons used to be a great reporter for the Boston Globe, but I believe the national spotlight has inflated his ego to the point where he feels he is part of the story. I'm sure his employer encourages that behavior, though.

Your source?? Geez, everyone has a source apparently. I don't think it's fair to criticize Gammons because he is only reporting what is being reported to him. Based off what we've heard from numerous reports/front office people, it appears that this deal has been like a game of ping pong. Back and forth, and so on and so on. Gammons makes his assumptions off what he is being told by people in the know, it seems like immature journalism by a guy who has a huge ego...but I think he's just going off what he's been told. Most people go back and forth when describe these trade talks, perhaps there is a reason?

He may just be John Henry's pawn, but he's still part of the game.

"Has Mota been mentioned in any of the trade talks?"

One of the LA papers mentioned that rival GMs have asked about him, but they won't trade him. I have no idea of how true that is, or whether it's another story completely if it's a Nomar deal they're being offered.

Besides which, Manny Mota is 65 years old. I'd ask for Guillermo instead.

FWIW, jack is respected (in my book) and I don't think he would post something from the seat of his pants.

That's not saying that it is a lock that his source is correct, but it is saying that if jack has a reason to listen to and believe this source, it makes it somewhat credible.

I am sure Gammons wants this to end. You can see it when he reports that he is sick of being wrong. To be fair they do introduce him as someone with hot stove news which is all speculation and posturing. I myself want to keep Nomar and Manny but wouldn't be too hurt to get A-Rod in return. I just hope to god that we get something of value (offensively) in return. But this talk is better than sitting here next year losing Nomar and get nothing in return.

Gammons is being asked to work miracles - He has to give public reports updating us on private negotiations - He works in a world of rumor and secrets - Lawyers, executives, managers and the like whispering in hallways and into telephones -
I've been reading and listening to him for a decade and have always respected his info - Some people expect too much form these sports reporters

I missed the Gammons thing on ESPN radio. Damn you work!

Anyone got a recap?

Also - who did they mention was part of the deal?

Chances are, Gammons has been hearing different things on different days.

Tejada's deal with the Orioles may have pushed the Red Sox to make the deal,
since it undoubtedly pushed up Nomar's price to the 15 mil range.

They prefer paying one guy (ARod) big bucks rather than two(Manny/Nomar).

The thing that bothers me about Gammons, this year atleast, is that he isn't just reporting what is going on. He's asked to make his prediction if the deal will get done or not and that changes every time he shows up on TV. I think he's great to listen to and definately has good info/sources to inform the masses but the constant changing of predictions every 5 hours is annoying. Just pick a side and stay with it. If you're right, then you're right. If not, oh well, no one will hold it against you.

____________________________________________________________________

If Gammons is right about this 36 hour prediction then we can finally move on, start resigning, and fine tuning for next year.