GreenSox

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 02:09 PM) I forget where I read the story, and really don't know if it is true, but there was something out there last year that in the Peavy trade, Hahn was prepared to do the trade with Middlebrooks included and that KW shot that down. Eventually they reworked it and got Avi. If so, good move by Kenny. I remember reading something about another GM complaining that the Sox GM wasn't empowered to make final decisions.

Thanks for the rundown.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 03:56 PM) Depending on the price, this could be an absolute steal. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with inquiring. And just because a player strikes out does not mean he should not be brought in. Guys strike out a lot these days. Right, plus if you bring him in, you may be able to sign him to an extension. That would not be a bad thing. Oh yea, another Teahan deal. REally cheap, fine. When is the last time the Sox got a player like that really cheap. Sox will pay his 2013 price - top dollar, if they get him. Astros aren't going to let him go really cheap anyway. I'm just sick of these 140K guys anyway; you guys want more of that action, fine.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Except that Jason Castro is a potential all-star at his peak. Plus having two very capable catchers is not a bad thing. Sure, but not when you have no #3, or 4 starter; not when you have no DH or LF. And not when you still have a thin farm system. It doesn't address priorities. He's also under control for only 2 more years; he was also terrible offensively last year (OPS of .651) and in his good year, he Ks a ton. We don't know how good he is at calling a game. This would be bad move.

Hopefully his role had nothing to do with trades, although I guess simple veto power wouldn't really mess anything up.

QUOTE (peppers312 @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/451...or-jason-castro how is a kid who hit .222 last season with 151 in 465 ABs any type of improvement over Flowers? because of his age? not the type of news that WOWs me. :/ No. Not a priority. Sox need hitters in the lineup. Marginal upgrades from terrible to possibly just bad are not a good use of resources.

No to Niese. He's not the pitcher the Sox need by any measure. I also disagree that Alexei has marginal value - worthy of a JR Murphy (no to Yankee catching prospects as well). You have to look at it in context. At least 2 teams are right on the verge of contention and have a glaring need for SS. There are no acceptable FA options. That ups his value. Also, when Ken Williams can trade the Sox 2 top pitching prospects for 1.5 years of Edwin Jackson and his 5+ ERA and inflated salary, I refuse to give up this early that there isn't a generous GM out there.

The edge we have now is money to spend. Don't use it on a# 4 or Elvis Andrus for goodness sake. You'd have to give up players anyway. While the FA market is thin there are still players out there. Go get Sandoval or someone

I think that the Sox really do want to move Alexei...because he's really the only trade chit they have without digging into the farm, which they're still trying to build. And I think they think that can cover SS. Hahn's public protestations to the contrary. Just my perception

I suspect that Scherzer will be paid more for past performance than future. Pass

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) Yeah, I'll go ahead and celebrate even less salary flexibility for the Tigs I'm with ya.

He had a bad year in 13, 14 and he is woefully overpaid. You have to pay this guy 15 mill per annum for another NINE years. that's a good deal?

Good lord. Have we given up already?

For goodness sakes

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 12:01 AM) Also seen this from NY media @MartinoNYDN: On Alexei Ramirez, #WhiteSox prefer young SPs like Syndergaard/Wheeler/Montero, while #Mets prefer to deal Niese/Gee/Colon. (1/2) @MartinoNYDN: Also #WhiteSox, like #Mets, in mode of trying to build contender. So while they'd deal Ramirez, it's not like he's burning a hole in pocket. Thanks for posting those tweets. I think they really sum up the Sox position nicely. The Sox don't have to trade Alexei. If they want him, the deliver the young pitchers, not the old and/or mediocre.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 06:59 PM) The Sox did when they didnt resign Thome and went with Kotsay instead. The idea was fine. The execution - Kotsay - was poor.

For goodness sakes no rents. Foolishness.

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.