GreenSox

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 05:51 PM) If they refuse to give up one Wheeler/Syndergaard what would you guys think about Niese and Lagares? Is that even "less"? Niese is still youngish at 28 and would be a solid #3. Lagares is one of the best defensive outfielders in the league. Niese is not a 3 (neither is Noesi). More like a 4. Those are back end of the roster players. Pass.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) What is wrong with having two #1's and #2? If it wasn't for the money I would be all for having him but that isn't realistic. There is nothing wrong with getting another #1 if the money is right. How do you define the money being right? The marginal benefit from another number 1 is less than the marginal benefit of using that money in places of real need. For example, a number 3 and a good LF would benefit the sox more than a number 1

For Danks. Fine, but not for young players

Adding a number 1 when sox have so many holes isn't best use of resources

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) now according to cbs sports, Rollins have turn down Phillies request of being traded to NYM. mets are getting no where. Good news for us. Reduce that supply

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) 1. The team hasn't gotten better on defense. 2. When has acquiring NL talent actually benefited the Sox? I think they are cursed in this area. Carlos Quentin Adam eaton I'm not sure AL talent acquisitions have been any better

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) What I don't understand is people who complain about the team bargain shopping, yet don't want to bring in front line talent when it is there. Because it is an outrageously poor use of resources for a 73 team, one with still a bottom 1/3 farm system at that, to pay premium prices to rent players for 1 year. In fact, this type of move is what CAUSES teams to become 73 win teams with bad farm systems (see Jackson, E. for our two top pitching prospects). My guess is the ones who hate bargain shopping are the ones who would love to load the wagon for one year of Shark. Somebody will throw a decent prospect at Oakland. But it won't be an elite one. And it will be a team that plans on contending that has a deep farm (like Boston). And what is with this love for the Shark? Heck, sign Shields.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) Signing him as a free agent still means we are giving up a prospect to get him. There is a pretty good chance our 1st pick is unprotected next year, and he will get a qualifying offer for sure. Yes, for FOUR or so YEARS of his services. Not ONE season. Big difference. And most draft choices, other than the top 5 or so, aren't top prospects yet. Lesser value. And did someone actually suggest Rodon? None of Rodon, Danish, Anderson or Montas should be anywhere near a Shark trade. Beane made a bad trade, as subsequent trades last year proved. Did 1.5 years of Price yield a top prospect? No But for some reason we need to give one for 1 year of the inferior Shark.

He has the highest trade value in baseball, but one at which no team would be willing to meet.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) The thing there is there's a good chance he's traded and the possibly extended. If he's a player the Sox truly have eyes on I'd have no problem trading for him. Really? Trade and sign? How many of these have happened? I's like the "flip". That never happens, but it will happen with the Sox. And so what if someone does sign him. There are other FA pitchers out there. What is so great about this guy (other than some weird cub psyche that so many have). And then there's his value. Top prospect? Did Price yield a top prospect? Oak gave up an elite prospect for him, and that price should be cut in half. Further, he wasn't worth an elite prospect to begin with -Beane misread the market badly. So if you figure what he was worth - 1 top prospect and divide it by half, you're left with a decent prospect. At that price, I don't care - sure, trade for him. But for one our best prospects? Ridiculous.

Wait until he's a free agent and sign him then. Save the prospects that we don't have in abundance. Sox have a marginal chance at the division with or without Shark. Oakland made a terrible deal trading for him and they were contenders (their Lester deal was far superior, despite the hand-wringing over the overrated Cespedes). This would be inane like the Edwin Jackson deal was.

How often does a team sign a rented player during the rental period? Rarely. Sox don't need rents

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 8, 2014 -> 01:07 PM) If they dont get big deal for alexei I wouldn't trade him That's the bottom line. The Sox certainly can use Alexei and have no real need to trade him, unless that trade firms up several other weaknesses. If it doesn't, then keep him.

While renting Heyward would be a pure clown move, the Sox wouldn't have to give up Rodon, Anderson or Montas to do so. Please identify the top prospect Tampa received for David Price, a player with another year on his deal, in the extreme July sellers market.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 8, 2014 -> 03:24 AM) Avy Montas and Rondon wasn't good enough? Well, Montas and Rodon weren't what they are now, back then. We'd never get them in that deal in their current progression. Still, I thought the return on Peavy was fair at the time: 1 top prospect and 3 lottery ticket A ball players. I don't recall anyone being dissatisfied with the Santiago return. I wasn't and I liked Santiago more than most - to me, he was about like Wheeler (without the former top prospect hype): similar WHIP, high K, control problems. As for Rios, that was a "Get him off the team" trade in the waiver period where you rarely get full value. Speaking of the return, L Garcia cannot be on this roster next year. He may have had the worst offensive year in Sox history.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 09:06 PM) How about this guy? Well, can you give me a name? The idea below of a roving DH with 4 outfielders. That's fine, although I think a DH may be easier to find than a real 4th outfielder that can hit. But if the Sox can find that (essentially 2 outfielders) taht's great. I'd also like an upgrade at 3B - been wondering if Gillaspie can play outfield. He appears reasonably athletic. Might use Viciedo as DH, per the Gonzales article. They don't want to sell low on him, understandably. Although Gonzales is nutty when he says that the Sox would use Ramirez to get Parnell from the Mets.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 10:57 PM) If avy Garcia had put up his last two seasons in another organization, how much would you be willing to give up to acquire him now? The reason I ask is because you can make an argument that Gattis has even more value because 1) his bat is more proven and 2) he can give you at least 80-100 games at catcher in an era when offense is virtually non-existent from that position. Finally I don't think the Braves are willing to take Hawkins until he has success for at least three months in Birmingham. By that point the white sox might decide the calculus of risk for trading him is too high. First, let me say that Gattis is NOT the player the Sox need, imo. He is bad defensively, doesn't walk, high K. A better Viciedo. Sox need athletes. That said, what is his value? Let's look at the Mark Trumbo trade. They are similar players. High K, bad defensively, Trumbo has more power, Gattis delivers a similar OPS in other ways. Arizona relinquished 2 former top (not elite) prospects, who had unsuccessful "cups of coffee" in the majors. Now that trade was roundly derided as a severe overpay. So 2 top prospects for GAttis? Forget it. A sox top 2 or 3? No.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 8, 2014 -> 01:18 AM) then no zack wheeler Not sure what you're getting at. Wheeler isn't a prospect. And based on results so far, he isn't elite either. That could change if he could fix his control. Could. If. Nice K numbers though. But, yea, I don't think they get an elite prospect like Pederson for Alexei.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 11:49 PM) We wont get a top prospect for alexei the cubs will with Castro. They have about equal value. While Castro is signed for longer, it's not "team friendly" and that can swing both ways. Castro has a contract that has the risk of being a real albatross. Alexei's much older, but cozying up with Castro for 6 years at solid dollars isn't all that comfortable either. Sox absolutely could get a top prospect for Alexei. Not an elite one, but a top one (30-70 range). Same with Castro.

First, I have no objection to flipping Viciedo for him. do I think that Viciedo has more upside. Yes, but he's yet to grab it. through c. 1700 at bats, Saunders has a career OPS of .685. Viciedo, with a similar number of at bats, is .722. Saunders is off of a career year (although with 1/2 season of at bats and some significant split differentials) so he may be on the upswing. I have no suggestion. I don't want rents, I don't want decliners, and I don't want to trade real assets for guys like Saunders who is okay but that's it. Switch him with Viciedo or something? Fine. Have to wait for a good FA class (terrible in the outfield this year) and for the farm to develop depth. Maybe Hahn can find an undervalued player like Eaton was in CF.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 06:52 PM) Gattis, as mentioned above, would have had the fourth best dh performance in the al. The Braves will look to trade Heyward and upton as both will be lost as free agents. The Braves like evan's bat ... And prefer another catcher defensively. They also feel his bat will play even bigger not having to catch regularly. You tell me who the white sox would have to give up for a proven young cost-controlled player if it's not Anderson? You may be right and that's why you shouldn't trade top prospects for average or slightly above average, proven bats. (Hello nick swisher). You trade Anderson et al for a cost controlled stud.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 06:15 PM) This is one of the solution i can see is alexei going to the A's for samardzija. Their top prospect is a ss but might be still of a couple years away. If the A's dont want to take on the extra salary of Ramirez or prefer younger talent then maybe a three team deal with the mets might help. Ramirez goes to mets, samardzija goes to the sox and prospects back to the A's from the sox and mets. Would maybe help not shedding so much of our prospects. Again, why do people want the Sox to trade for 1 year rent when they are coming off of 73 wins and are trying to build a team? Heck they should take Alexei and give us a prospect. Shark isn't elite.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) He hit 19 homers at Safeco the year he got his most playing time. Safeco is the worst (or 2nd worst) park in baseball to hit home runs in. The home run hitting environment is very different than it was a few short years ago. 57 players hit 20 home runs this year. In 2009, 87 players hit 20 home runs. yes, and in the year he hit 19 homers, he checked in with a Viciedo-like .306 OBP. Apparently he has to cut back on the power stroke to get on base at an acceptable level. Viciedo had a bad year last year, but most of his years are like Saunders. he also strikes out like Viciedo does. Like I said, Saunders looks like Conor Gillsapie. Saunders is a good player, but not really what is needed in a corner position, unless you have the rest of them covered very well, which the Sox don't. He'd be an upgrade, but nothing to plunge over.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 05:35 PM) The more I think about it, the more I want this kid on the Sox. He fills the lefty bat void that would fit nicely behind or in front of Abreu. Plus, he brings tremendous defense in right field. That mean's 2/3s of the OF would be solidified by a gold glover and a gold glove nominee. I then would sign him to a 6 year 90 million dollar contract. Thoughts? He will be available next year. You are a year early 73 win teams don't trade for rents

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) Interesting. So the bottom line is DeAza is a better option than anybody we've been discussing. It appeared, at least to me, that De Aza 1/2 a$$ed it a lot. Perhaps simply playing for a contender inspired him. We did sell low on him, although his horrendous start was a big reason; also, I sensed that the Sox wanted him, like Rios the year before (also sold low) simply off the team. Anyway, De Aza certainly does look competitive with the available players...that's a testament to the poor availability of players these days and how the Sox let their org deteriorate for a while.