The White Sox have not made a trade this off-season with the main reason of dumping payroll...Does it serve a purpose ? Yes, but the White Sox had 6 starting pitchers, and 5 of them made good money. Somebody had to go, and it was Garcia.

If you were running a team, and you had 6 starting pitchers, wouldn't you move one of them ?

Now, to me, it sounds like you're upset more about what they got back, and I'm also not a big Gavin Floyd fan, from what I've seen - I hope I'm wrong.

Williams had 2 options in regards to the Garcia trade - do nothing, keep 6 starters OR trade Garcia for MLB ready talent. I think Williams will tell you that he did that because Floyd will go into camp as the leader for the #5 job, and he also got a pitcher he referred to as one of the two best lefty pitching prospects in the majors (Denks being the other).

I do not see how anyone could call these moves salary dumps. The Garcia deal did not decrease the talent level either for 07 or the future. Salary was an incentive in the deal but not the principal incentive. Gio Gonzalez was the principal incentive.

Gload and Mc Carthey were obviously not for salary either.

The fact is the Sox salary will remain fairly static.

After all the moves shook out I do believe the Sox are a weaker team for 07, however I do not see the moves as salary dumps.

I agree completely, especially with the notion that this has not been an example of salary dumping... as of right now.

For some reason I cannot say that trading the "about-to-be-out" Garcia for two talented (and possibly over-hyped) prospects is an example of salary dumping in any way. The talent level has not changed in that respect regardless of the bright spots we saw from Garcia at the end of the year.

If you want to make an argument that the team is weaker for this year, that's fine, but to say they're dumping salary is not accurate. Their payroll is not decreasing. Thus, it's impossible to have a "salary dump".

Now, whether the team is weaker or not can be argued. In my opinion, their biggest (but not their only) problem from last year was the bullpen. With the exception of about 2 months in the middle of the season, there was rarely a feeling of comfort about turning the ball over in the 6th or 7th inning. From the looks of it, the bullpen options are better now than they were last year. If one of these aquisitions can be a decent 5th starter and the pen has improved, the Sox will win this year. Regardless of LF, CF, and SS, they'll still score runs, but holding leads will be the important thing. If the pitching is good, the pressure is off the offense to feel like they have to score 7 runs a game which could make a big difference. However, there isn't a guarantee that the bullpen will be better, but if it is they'll be in good shape.

And THAT is why the Sox are in better shape (at least on paper) this year, in regards to their pitching options. You are absolutely dead-on, Ranger.

Of course, we could all be singing a different tune if these kids don't turn out to be what KW is hoping for.

This isn't valid logic. A static or increasing payroll versus last year does not imply the lack of salary dump tactics. The reason for this is simple -- you are not comparing 2007 payroll versus 2006 payroll; rather you are comparing 2007 payroll absent the alleged "dump" versus 2007 payroll as is. Only one variable is allowed.

If they had not traded Freddy Garcia, 2007 payroll would have been higher than it will be as the team is currently constituted. Therefore, this was, whether as a primary purpose or not, a salary-cutting move.

Another example -- say a hot dog stand is facing heavily increasing bun prices. To compensate, they change their 2006 all-beef hot dogs to pork dogs in 2007. Meanwhile, the increase in bun prices results in higher cost (to the stand) dogs in 2007 than 2006. The change from all-beef to pork is still a cost-cutting move, despite the absolute increase in cost.

_________________
Look over there! A dry ice factory. A good place to get some thinking done.
Did I forget to mention, forget to mention Memphis? Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks.

Rongi - I think the bullpen can be very good, but I can't say the bullpen options are better now than they were entering last season when we had Politte and Cotts who both looked like great setup men to go with Jenks. Cisco, Massot, and Aardsma all have great arms, and I'm excited, but they still have to prove themselves, MacDougal needs to stay healthy, Thorton has to show last season wasn't a fluke, and Jenks needs to stay in better shape. I don't mean to sound pessimistic about the bullpen, just saying that we don't know what 1/2 the bullpen is really going to do until they get out there. The upside is huge though as those guys all have great arms.

My big problem with the offense is that it reverted back to the 3 run HR or nothing, and I'd like to know what has been done to improve that ? Nothing. I don't want an offense like we saw some last year where they were capable of scoring 10 runs in any given game, but more often than not scored 1 or 2 because it was HR dependent.

I think the starting pitching will be better than last year, and, like I said, the bullpen can be very good, but it has to be listed as a question mark until these guys go out and get the job done.

First of all, the Sox payroll is not 100 mil. The Phils are paying a big chunk of Thome's salary and same goes for Vazquez and the D-Backs, so you are looking at a payroll now of 85 mil.

Secondly, if the Sox are going to depend on Sisco, Gavin Floyd and Aardsma to improve their bullpen, its going to be a long year. After hearing Williams on North yesterday, I feel Kenny thinks people are stupid and if you are not going to fall in line and kiss his ass, then he doesnt need ya. Chris I understand that you have to be a yes man, but this is not a argument you can win.

What's an argument I can't win? That the Sox bullpen may be better this year than last? That wouldn't be tough to accomplish. And I'll say it again, though you'll believe whatever you want to because it's convenient for you to do so, but nobody tells me what to say or how to think. The bottom line is that you may not agree with me and the easiest thing you can do is tell me that I have to say what I'm saying.

I'll repeat myself because I feel like i have to: all I'm saying is that if the bullpen is better in 2007, the Sox will be in good shape for the most part.

And no, I don't think you're right on the 85 mil. The Yanks are only paying about 3 mil of Vazquez' salary each year and the Phils are picking up around 5 mil of Thome's. So the Sox are at least shelling out 91 mil. Regardless, they have a payroll of players worth 100 mil plus. Whether or not they're paying most of that is irrelevant. You should be happy they aren't. Otherwise, you'd be picking up the rest of the tab.

[quote="Kadomony Therefore, this was, whether as a primary purpose or not, a salary-cutting move.

.[/quote]

That is simply not true. I defined salary dump and then explained why the Garcia move does not fit the definition but I'll give you a better example:

Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton for a second base prospect who had already proven himself to not be a prospect was a salary dump.

Freddy Garcia for two pitching prospects, one of whom you consider a potential top of the rotation pitcher, while not decreasing your MLB talent level is not a salary dump.

Under your definition, any trade in which the contracts are not equal is a salary dump by one team. That is clearly incorrect.

[quote="nWo4Life

First of all, the Sox payroll is not 100 mil. The Phils are paying a big chunk of Thome's salary and same goes for Vazquez and the D-Backs, so you are looking at a payroll now of 85 mil.

Secondly, if the Sox are going to depend on Sisco, Gavin Floyd and Aardsma to improve their bullpen, its going to be a long year. After hearing Williams on North yesterday, I feel Kenny thinks people are stupid and if you are not going to fall in line and kiss his ass, then he doesnt need ya. Chris I understand that you have to be a yes man, but this is not a argument you can win. [/quote]

First of all, you are kind of correct, it will not be 100 million. It is at 96 million (taking all those payments into consideration). I believe it was 92 million last year.

As to your second point, a full year of Thornton and Mc Dougal is going to make the bullpen better. The removal of a bad as could possibly be Politte and Cotts is going to make the bullpen better. The inclusion of Masset is going to make the bullpen better. You can live with a guy like Aardsma as the 5th man in the bullpen with Sisco the 6th and either Haeger or Floyd as the long reliever.

The Sox pay roll will be close to 100 million. Especially after Crede gets his arbitration money. I think that's still pending.

I love some of you guys who say "I hate getting prospects" in one breath and in another you say "why did they trade McCarthy?" Who happens to be a prospect.

The same people who say "why did we trade Freddy" are the people who forget that he had a 5 ERA much of the year and didn't come on until the end.

Exactly. I guarentee that if it didn't happen in the pre-season, Freddy would have been gone before the All-Star break anyway. And probably for a couple players that are a lot less talented (potentially) than the arms we got for him now.

By your definition it is clearly not a "salary dump". However, I was merely responding to Chris's insinuation that it cannot be a "salary dump" because the total payroll will remain constant or increase. As you can see, I did not refer to the Garcia move as a "dump", but rather as a "salary-cutting move", which is quite true, whether it was intended as such or not.

For what it's worth, I like the Garcia trade. I just didn't like Chris's statement that a salary dump CANNOT have taken place because the total team payroll didn't decrease.

_________________
Look over there! A dry ice factory. A good place to get some thinking done.
Did I forget to mention, forget to mention Memphis? Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks.

Guys they are trying to rebuild while maintaining a contending team. Like it or not they have a budget. Can it be higher. Yes

Keep in mind they traded prospects for the 2005 championship and added pay roll.

Garcia - From Seattle for prospects. None of those prospects are paned out. Oliva and Reed are busts. Great move. Now you flip Garcia to get prospects back. Very nice in my opinion. He's fadding.

Contrarous- From New York for Loiza. Jose was making more then Loiza even though NY picked up some

A.J- was added via free agency.

Dye- Was an excellent free agent signing.

The prospects that panned out for the Sox- Konerko, Crede, Garland, Rowand, Jenks.

I hate when I hear people say "oh, I don't want prospects they never pan out." Think for a second guys. Of every great player that ever played baseball. I'll give you a second. Got them in your mind... Good. THEY WERE ALL PROSPECTS AT ONE TIME YOU IDIOTS. The Cubs haven't had any but that's because of bad management.

You need young players from your system because they are cheap for 5 years and you sprinkle in the free agents. Kenny's trying to rebuild on the fly. It's smart. Could Jerry spend more. Yes. But he's spending enough and we're hoping for some kids to pan out. I will judge Kenny on his ability to project these kids he traded for. I know nothing about them. Neither do you. I hope I shed some light. Look at the Yankees. Huge payroll, no titles in 7 years, now those players are old and they have no farm systems. They can't even trade these guys.

Not to defend the Cubs, but you have a little problem of consistency in your post.