GreenSox

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) This is like saying you don't draft Michigan wide receivers or USC quarterbacks or you don't trade for Yankees prospects. #1) The last of those trades happened 5 years ago. Durham and Foulke both occurred 10+ years ago. Times have changed. #2) The Sox got Neal Cotts. He was only good for 1 year, but he helped win a World Series. That's all I need If you got consistent duds from USC or Michigan, you probably wouldn't. Have times changed? Beane was there then and is there now. Roids were around then and around now. What has really changed? But like I said, most of that was our stupidity. We seem to make stupid decisions when we deal with Oakland. Pass. As for the Lemon trade, Kemp performed very well. Lemon was just the better player. I have no idea how the Sox couldn't see that. On the other hand, Swisher and Koch were utter duds (Swisher wasn't terrible, but played below par, and the Sox overrated him anyway in terms of talent relinquished).

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) Nix on trading with Oakland. Durham, Foulke, Swisher....all ugly. Although those trades were probably generally our stupidity, still, no. I don't trust that organization. We're kind of assuming and hoping that salary dumping isn't a prime Sox motivation. I hope we're correct in that assumption.

Nix on trading with Oakland. Durham, Foulke, Swisher....all ugly. Although those trades were probably generally our stupidity, still, no. I don't trust that organization.

Well, my bad. Not a scout.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:01 AM) Rienzo is definitely rising over the last couple months. Rough start in AAA but has gotten his stuff together lately. He has big league rotation ability if he can harness it. Some scout I read remarked when watching the future games that Rienzo showed a pretty nasty out pitch. I just edited my earlier post to say that Snodgress really isn't rising...just sort of hanging.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:01 AM) Since they're both young and under control for so long, their trade value ought to be based in large part on their performance ceiling. Both of them have established in the big leagues that their ceiling is "top of the rotation left-handed workhorse". I can't imagine a team meeting that price. That's kind of an optimistic evaluation of them. I don't think you'll ever get their value in prospects...but major leaguers or near major leaguers with a team that has some surplus in an area we need? We might. But if we can't get value, we shouldn't do the trade. And honestly, there's some gap. If we have all of these top of the rotation starters, we shouldn't be one of the 3 or 4 worst teams in baseball, even making allowance for bad hitting, terrible defense, and, dare I say it, bad managing. Or maybe that's enough to be terrible.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 12:37 AM) Outside of E. Johnson, do we? Snodgress (may not be rising exactly, but a prospect), Ortiz, Webb. I'm not sure Rienzo is rising, but he looks like he'll at least make a bullpen. These guys aren't ML ready, but, heck, the #1 prospect in baseball isn't either. But they're improving.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:04 AM) Other than walks, Santiago has been better than Danks across the board. He's cheaper, younger, and healthier. I'd rather the Sox keep him over Danks. Having the 3 lefties in your rotation as Sale, Q, and Santiago looks amazing for the next five years. Then throw in Johnson, even better. If the Sox can get a high upside RHP starter prospect...then you have a cheap, young rotation with a legitimate ace headlining it. My preference would be to trade Quintana or Danks. If this isn't a rebuild, but a retool to contend soon, we're going to have to craft some trades like we saw in the old days to bring veterans in here, hopefully youngish ones. Quintana would have value. Santiago I think hasn't put it together and we'd be selling a little low. Danks is killed by the homers; but we're in a homer park, and other teams might be able to discount those homer totals.

Peavy's scheduled to go Thursday afternoon, so I'd suspect that we'll get Boston's best offer by then.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 08:23 PM) Would a rebuilding team even want any White Sox prospects right now? We actually have some prospects on the rise, particularly in pitching.

I'm not believing this one.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 10:03 PM) Jake to Beantown has legs. They have prospects, but I've never gotten the sense they'd part with the real good ones. And I always figure that Boston's farm is always overrated some because of the media love-affair and that the sabre-boys claim them as their success story, so they over-hype. But they do have good ones even discounting them some. I guess that Cards deal was too good to be true.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 05:50 PM) I would LOVE that trade for the Sox, but I can understand Freese being the hang up from a Cardinals standpoint because thats a lot of f***ing around you have to do with your lineup when they seem to have gelled pretty well thus far into the season. I would be ok with Freese being dropped from the deal and Wong and maybe another minor leaguer being added, maybe Valera or Piscotty. All I have to say, if this is true, don't let Freese be the hang up of the deal. Getting Adams in a White Sox uniform should be the main goal, as he is the impact bat this team needs. If that did happen, one of Konerko or Dunn would soon have to be dealt. I would hope we can be flexible on Freese. It's a little much (a lot much) to expect a contender to trade their productive third baseman. If they're willing to include Adams, we need to be flexible here. Take Wong instead. That would be fantastic trade for us.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 03:49 PM) How are you defining "Marquee"? Carlton Fisk Albert Belle Adam Dunn That's 3 big money guys right there. Do we go down the list to Dye as well? Fisk and Belle were big-time free agents. There wasn't huge demand for Dunn, but he's probably #3. We got Dye off the scrap heap. AJ too. That's really not many marquees in JR's 30+ years. But, then again, I don't think that marquee free agents are a good idea anyway. too much money in too few players, who no longer have the incentive to play like they once did.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) I don't see the Sox being able to get that, but maybe I'm wrong. Texas wanted to get someone and not wait back. Maybe two, three or four teams emerge in a bidding war and it allows the Sox to get as much or more. It would be a huge boom to our system. Of course the next step is developing them. I would hope the Sox could do better or something more tapered to our needs.. The more I look at this, I don't see much on the Cubs end. ONe former top prospect who looks like he may be a bust (but he may not be), a #5 starter with a #4 ceiling (something the Sox don't need) , an interesting A ball pitcher, and then a couple of more likely A ball pitchers. That's really not what the Sox need.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 11:57 PM) Dan Hayes ‏@DanHayesCSN 8m One baseball source thought #Rangers overpaid for Matt Garza. Believes #WhiteSox could get a similar haul for Peavy. http://bit.ly/12e3Tp6 View summary From whom though? I see that Grilli had to be carted off in the 9th. That might open demand for relievers. If they think they can win a division with Mark Melancon as their top reliever, well then, good luck to them.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:57 AM) The Cubs should never have gotten a top 50 prospect for Garza. He's a free agent after this season. True. I think Garza's been pitching above his abilities for the last 6 weeks; with each start, he could come back down to earth which might pull down his trade value. I think in his last start he gave up 10 hits, although only a run or 2, so it could happen. The Cubs seem really anxious to trade him before his next start. But, if he keeps pitching the way he has been, he'd be a very good pitcher for a contender.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) Yeah, the market is very good right now for Peavy. I think we could get a top 50, considering at least three teams will be bidding after Garza moves. Logically we should; he's a very good pitcher, teams need starters, etc. I just don't think we will. And it's not us - I just don't think teams will relinquish them. I don't think the Cubs will for Garza either (unless one considers Olt a top 50 still). But I hope I'm wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) "3 of its top 5 prospects" really is a silly way to describe the trade for Peavy because 1 of those prospects was actually a close to MLB-ready guy, but the others were "guys buried deep in the minors who were only our top prospects because there wasn't much in the system". Swisher - 2 were ML ready and one was our top pitching prospect in the low minors. And a lot of these prospects in the various top 50 lists, including many "untouchables" are still in A ball, so they have high value. Williams was an aggressive GM....he gave a top 5 prospect in all of baseball plus a starting catcher for a good-not-great Freddie Garcia. He way overpaid, but it worked...the prospect was a bust and Garcia had a fine year in 2005. He then turned him into Gio and Floyd. He did all sorts of things -his top draft choice the year before was traded for a rent of either Everett or Alomar - forget which. But there's not a GM in baseball except perhaps Bryan Sabean who had the guts to do those deals that Williams made. Everyone's afraid of trading the next Bagwell. But toward the end, his aggression started failing. So anyway, as we're dumping veterans, perhaps there's a new Kenny W out there to trade with us. Heck, the way prospects are valued, the real "value" very well may be in the veterans.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 09:50 AM) I also want no part of Middlebrooks. If we are trading with Texas the package should be built around Sardinas. With the Red Sox my top target would be Cecchini with Vincio also included. I agree to pass on Middlebrooks, and your suggestions are excellent top targets. But I just don't see us scoring a top 50 for Peavy. I hope I'm wrong.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) Yes, more involved in look at the players the Sox acquire. This is not news, so you can take your tin foil hat off. Yes, Williams said "We don't feel we're including enough in this trade, we need to give you Gonzalez too." Orrrrrrrrrrr Gio Gonzalez was the main piece in the deal and Beane wanted him to send Ryan Sweeney and Fautino De Los Santos too. That's nice. But that's pretty much what likely happened. Williams wanted Swisher, and Beane kept asking for more, and Williams gave in. I can't think of another example of a team giving up 3 of its top 5 prospects for a decent but non-all star hitter like Swisher. We did a similar thing when trading for Edwin Jackson.......Hopefully we can score a similar deal for Peavy.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) And Howry and Foulke were key parts of the 2000 team, but we can't mention that. We have to talk about how the Red Sox waited 7 years instead of 3 years for that trade to work out for them . Dude Boston made the playoffs the next year....and in 99 and in 2003. It was 7 years before they won a WS. We had to get a new GM before we won one of those. As your goal here is apparently to stick a thumb in my eye and say "na na na na na" I'll give you some ammo: you could point out the closer on Boston's 2004 WS team was none other than Keith Foulke. Otherwise, I don't know what your point is.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) Of course it is a bad philosophy, that is why nobody has it, including the white sox. Its funny that you put this "we wouldnt deal with the desperate mariners" onus on the White Sox 16 years after the fact, because I never heard anything of the sort. Ever. Please prove me wrong, I would love to read anything that proves this little tinfoil hat theory. Armchair GMs are fun. Then you weren't listening or watching. And then you could check out Slocumb's stats from 1997, including his 1.90 WHIP and ERA near 6 and his 17 saves, and then check out Roberto Hernandez and his 27 saves, and tell me who was the better closer and that Seattle wouldn't have taken Roberto in a heartbeat...without even considering the 2 other pitchers the Sox threw in. And the reason I'm bringing this up now is that in this thread, some said we don't want to trade with the Tigers. Just pointing out a specific instance where that philosophy was extremely costly.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) You'd have to add a LOT more to make "throwing in" Crain make sense. Lindstrom might be closer to somebody that could be called a throw in. Maybe...I think a healthy Crain brings a B prospect or 2. Not as much as we'd like. I think Nate Jones is getting close to Reed, and may surpass him.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) The problem with this is that Castellanos is too much for Reed, but the Tigers don't have anything else that's worth him. I guess he is, based on how teams value elite prospects...higher than above average major leaguers. We could throw in another player...hell throw in Crain, although they'd probably have to add something on their side. It would be nice to get an elite prospect somwhere, instead of all Bs.