illinilaw08

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) I think it some point they take last bids on Q, and trade him for the best offer. They have gone really far down the trade path with him, especially in public, for him to come back now. Even if they go into the season with a lot of those players, I don't see them adding to them in any significant way. I fully expect Abreu and Lawrie to be on the opening day roster. Q I think there is about 10% chance. Frazier is not much higher, though I see a disappointing return to move him. Melky I think will be on the roster, as no one will really want him. Call it a 75% chance at return. I think this is largely correct. The only point that I disagree on is Frazier. I think Frazier has a better chance to rebuild his value in season, and I don't see him really blocking any young guy the Sox want to try out (between 2B and 3B, should be able to get Saladino the ABs to figure out what you have). Right now, the right handed slugger market is pretty saturated. After those guys clear out, and if Frazier rakes early in the season, the return might go up at the deadline.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Dec 30, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) Right now, staying on topic with the rockettes. Thanks. I'm glad you are sticking to the important issues...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 30, 2016 -> 11:58 AM) They have so much space under the salary cap right now, I don't see the justification in losing him for nothing. They can still threaten to tag him and then trade him right? With the amount of cap space the Bears have, I don't see why you wouldn't just tag him for a second year. Assuming a rookie QB, having a guy with Alshon's skills would be a nice security blanket for a young QB.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 30, 2016 -> 11:01 AM) I keep going back to the fact that he is worth more to the Sox than other teams because of the way others view him. The Sox won't trade him for less than a #1 is worth and others don't view him that way, thus no trade. I was reading the comments on the most recent Q article on Purple Row (Rockies fan site), and there was a comment that was pretty spot on re: the difference in value between Q and Sale. Other than strikeouts, Q and Sale have pretty similar advanced numbers - whether that's judged by FIP, WAR, ERA +, etc. Where they differ is on their ability to dominate in a given game. It shouldn't be a surprise to any of us that Sale has the pure stuff to win a game by himself, and Q just doesn't have that level of stuff. With Q, you are dealing for a really, really good pitcher. Durable, consistent, and on an absurdly cheap deal. But you aren't dealing for a guy that's going to go out and steal a game for you with an 8 IP, 2 H, 14 K day. Teams are more likely to give top flight value for the guy who can go out and give you Sale's top end level of brilliance than the guy who is going to give you Q's sustained level of consistently very, very good. If there is a disconnect, IMO, that's going to be it.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 30, 2016 -> 10:52 AM) I dont think Colorado is interested in Quintana. I dont know what their reasons are, though their unique homefield sure gives them a lot of weird things to consider that other teams normally wouldn't even bother with, but if they really wanted Quintana there would be something linking the two by now. Perhaps its the price, one thing we dont know is what Hahn's ask is and maybe they dont want to sell their entire farm. We know the Astros, Yankees and Pirates have or at least had some pretty strong interest but have backed out because of the price also. Some of you seem overjoyed by this, but with the WBC coming up and the prospect of teams just moving on from the idea of getting Quintana (as has appeared to have happened with the Astros) I'm getting pretty worried. Hahn may have overplayed his hand. Purple Row has had two articles about Q to the Rockies, so their fanbase is interested, and the Rockies front office is notoriously quiet. We know they talked to the Sox about Abreu and Frazier before the Winter Meetings, so there has been communication between the two FOs. Point here - there's been chatter, but nothing from any official capacity. I'm skeptical it will happen because of the nuances of pitching in Coors, and I think there was an Olney chat shortly after the Eaton trade that was skeptical of how Q's curve would play in Denver. But there's been at least some smoke around the Rockies and Q. I'm not worried that Hahn has overplayed his hand, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the Pirates have backed out. If there's a deal to be made, it will get done. There's no sense in giving Q away.

QUOTE (striker @ Dec 30, 2016 -> 08:56 AM) 1. If you have talent on your major league roster, you can always use that to replenish your minors. For example, see the current Chicago White Sox. 2. They have a window to compete now. They stand to lose Arenado, Gonzalez and Blackmon in the next 1-2 years. Abreu + Quintana could add anywhere from 6 to 10 wins. Rockies are currently projected for 78 wins in 2017 by FanGraphs. Quintana (4) + Abreu (2) puts them at 84 wins in 2017. 3. They don't have spots to play all of their prospects. Rodgers, Tapia and Murphy don't have positions right now (not that they are all major league ready). No point in holding them in the minors, might as well convert them to return on your major league roster. To me a team has to commit to winning or losing. The Rockies are in the same boat the White Sox were, mired in mediocrity, but they have the prospects to change that. With my trade above, you have a sweet team for the next two years, you put your balls on the table. At the 2018 trade deadline, you can trade Blackmon or Arenado to add prospects, then in the offseason you could move Abreu, Quintana or anyone else to do the same. Or you could keep your roster as is, win 78-80 games and talk about how you have great prospects. To the extent that the Rockies get involved on Q (and I still think it makes sense from both sides), I can't see a better offer coming back than Rodgers, Hoffman +. They aren't moving Dahl. Adding Abreu/Robertson/Frazier isn't going to up the prospect haul significantly. Rockies took a big step forward last year. It's reasonable for them to think that their young pitching will improve and get them a couple extra wins this year. The offense is loaded. They can reasonably expect the bullpen to be better after their offseason. The fit is there, and Rodgers is far enough away that he shouldn't be untouchable. If the Rockies want Q, they should be able to get a deal done. But there's risk from the Rockies side - Q throws his curve roughly 1/4 of the time and that might not play in Coors. Q would have to become more of a fastball/change guy at Coors Field.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 30, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) This would be the liberal nightmare scenario for the whole telling people that they can't deny people services for religious, moral, or ethical reasons. I don't think that is correct. This is an employment issue between the Rockettes corporate and their individual dancers. There has to be a contract governing the relationship between the individual dancers and their employer, and their contract would control the extent to which they can pick and choose their outside engagement. Also, that's a pretty broad reading of the liberal position on services. The guy who was harassing Ivanka Trump on that plane? The airline had every right to kick him off the plane because he was being a disruptive, a-hole. The airline wouldn't have the right to kick him off the plane because he was gay, muslim, etc. To the extent that the individual Rockettes think Donald Trump is an a-hole, I don't see where that fits in with your broad reading about denying people services for religious, moral, or ethical reasons. You can choose not to provide services to someone who is an a-hole. You just can't refuse services because they are a Republican, or a Christian, or an African-American, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 01:17 PM) Well I pulled the trigger and my Peloton arrived this morning and is all setup. Very solid, quiet bike. Interface and monitor seems very intuitive. Looking forward to taking my first class tonight or tomorrow morning. Please post what you think of it. I'm intrigued by the peloton for winter training...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 10:07 AM) I want to see Tyler Saladino play there for 150 games next year. See if he can hit and see if his body can handle it. That's why I'm more focused on us needing to move Frazier than the guy I can't stand seeing in a White Sox uniform in LF. The posts around this one talk about Frazier putting up 2.5 WAR, with his ability on defense if Saladino can put up a .700 OPS he can give similar value and quality defense could help the pitching staff more for a minimal price. He looked like a big league ballplayer in both 2015 and 2016, but he never got a full season there. If his body falls apart again or he puts up a .600 OPS on the year fine, then I won't be able to say he would be deserving of a 2018 spot, but the only way you're going to avoid having me saying the same thing next offseason is to play him. And no, he can't take the 2b slot, because I think someone else gets that position in 2018. Can't Frazier play 3B/1B/DH? Until Moncada comes up, Saladino can get ABs at both 2B and 3B while playing everyday. Frazier's existence shouldn't prevent Saladino from playing 150 games this year. Conceptually, I agree though. Saladino is one of the guys who needs a full year tryout to see if he's part of the plan going forward.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 07:35 AM) Lovie Smith got fired and everyone was happy about it after going 10-6. They are 22-41 since. Another horrible year isn't going to play. This is the NFL where careers aren't long and free agency changes things in an instant. It's almost impossible to build a team to go on a long run. You have to be adjusting every year. It is more than fair Fox and Pace have their necks on the line in 2017. That feels short sighted to me. Pace had a great draft last year. The defense has made pretty steady progress despite not having a single DB of note. Sacrificing the long-term health of the franchise to win a couple games with Tony Romo doesn't do anything for the long-term stability of the franchise. The goal right now needs to be adding talented pieces and creating real depth, not selling out the rebuild in the hopes that you can be marginally competitive in '17.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 01:15 PM) What if the Bears traded down in the first round? A 1 and a 4 then might make some sense. I still don't think it does. Garrapolo plays for the Bears for peanuts for 1 year. Then they either have to franchise him at $20M+ or they have to give him a long term deal that probably starts at Osweiler money. And if he's bad in that year for the Bears, then they've given up a 1 and a 4 on a team that's starved for depth for a single year of a bad QB. Realistically, the Bears only long-term answer at QB is through the draft...

QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) Hypothetically speaking if Garrapolo was released from the Pats and placed in this years draft. Wouldnt you strongly consider taking him at 3 if you are the Bears? That's not really a reasonable point of comparison though. Garrapolo has 1 year left and then he gets paid based on a single year's sample size. Whoever the Bears draft at 3 (or in the 2nd round), they control for 4 years.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) I was just going through the entire league in my head and was thinking how I can't think of a good fit for Robertson outside of Nats or Mets. Is there another suitor you all can think of? Blue jays? Rockies? If they are thinking about contending this year, they could use another back of the bullpen arm.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 11:41 AM) This rebuild has hit cult-like proportions, and it has just begun. SS, I don't really understand your thoughts on the rebuild. I do understand that the product on the field is going to be very difficult to watch for, well, probably all of next year and most of '18 at a minimum. And I understand that the novelty of the rebuild is going to wear off quickly. But the philosophy prior to this year was to try to plug holes around the couple of elite guys and contend. That plan has failed for so very many years in a row, and it showed no signs of being effective prior to the end of Sale's deal. Having a mediocre MLB club, and a bottom 10 farm system is a recipe for sustained mediocrity or worse. I understand your position on the Eaton deal. In a farm system that's basically depleted of position prospects, adding three more plus pitching prospects can be construed as filling the wrong needs. I disagree with that, but I see where you are coming from. But when you make that argument, you ignore the other trade - the one that brought back a consensus top 5 prospect in the game, and for many people the best prospect in the game who is pretty close to MLB ready (conservatively 2018 at the latest), and a second position prospect who, according to the FutureSox thread, is going to show up on MLB's top 100 prospects list this January. The Sale trade brought in two position prospects who slot into the Sox top 3 position prospects overall. Simply put, a rebuild is going to be ugly for a couple years. And if the scouts are wrong, and development doesn't get these guys where they are going, it's going to look really ugly for a lot of years. Going into the '16-'17 offseason, the Sox had no immediate contending window, and no long term contending window. Today, I'd say that if everything goes right, their next window opens in '20 (with the possibility of a surprise WC run in '19) and could extend for several years.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) Say what? From 2010-2015 the White Sox had five first round draft picks. 4 of them have already appeared in the majors. You can't ask for much more than that. This. The Sox sin over the last several years is that, because there was no depth in the system, they rushed their best prospects to the majors. The refreshing part of this rebuild is that they will promote guys to the majors when they are ready - not in an effort to win now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 10:42 AM) This would also be a nice haul. Torres and Rutherford might be our two top position prospects before Moncada was traded for. I would think any Q + Robertson deal would have to start with Torres and Rutherford, and then the negotiation over the final couple pieces happens. For that reason, I really like how the Yankees system matches up with the Sox. Haven't heard much from Houston since the Gammons rumor, but I wonder how much of that is that they just don't have the prospects that the Pirates and Yankees have to get Q.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 03:28 PM) I could care less. It is that NFL contract that is the winning powerball ticket. The players don't get a damned thing from winning a national title. If they feel like sitting out to protect themselves, more power to them. This. I have no issue with any of these kids sitting out bowl games/playoff games/Junior or Senior seasons to preserve their draft status. Once they have established themselves as an early first round pick, they get no additional benefit from the college system. Losing millions of dollars in guaranteed earnings to help your school win a national title is a really, really one sided transaction.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2016 -> 03:10 PM) If the White Sox system isn't going to develop position players then undertaking a rebuild was the absolute stupidest thing they could have done. If the White Sox system isn't going to develop position players, then they will never field a playoff team again, and the rebuild, and the very existence of the franchise, is a failure.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 11:23 AM) This is exactly what we needed, a second team to serve as a perceived threat to the Astros. I still don't buy the Yankees giving up what it would take to get Quintana, but perhaps they feel like they have enough positional prospect depth to move a couple guys for a legit TOR starter and then use their financial means to plug any remaining holes in their everyday lineup. Regardless, anything that puts pressure on the Astros is a good thing. You don't spend the money they spent on Chapman if you aren't planning to contend. The Yankees' rotation is a mess. Whether they have the pieces to make a deal work depends on how they feel about Gregorious/Castro as their middle infield. If they think one of those guys is fine, then one of Torres/Mateo is expendable. Have to think they'd be open to moving Rutherford since he's a couple years away. So one of Torres/Mateo + Rutherford + is a workable framework. And all else being equal, that framework works way better than Martes + Tucker + for me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 10:57 AM) The Yankees are a great fit. You can start a deal with one of the OF's (Frazier/Rutherford/Judge) and one of the SS's (Torres or Mateo) and be off to a great start. After that you have a guy like Miguel Andujar at 3B, or even if you think the shine is off of a Severino and the Coop squad thinks he is legit get him in the deal. The Yankees also have some arms that could close a deal at the end of it. This. Any 2 of the Yankees' top 5, plus someone from the back end of their top 10, plus lottery ticket. The Yankees system matches up really well with what I'd like to see the Sox get done in a Q deal.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 04:50 PM) I think one day we are all going to login and there will be a report that Q has been traded. Seems like whomever else the Sox are talking to have quiet lips and with everyone staying radio silent, we all might be surprised at who acquires him or how quick it goes down. This is why I'm still holding out hope that the Rockies are involved. They have been very quiet as an organization this offseason, which tracks with the relatively tight lipped status of Q negotiations right now. ETA: Not quiet in terms of making moves, but quiet on the rumor mill prior to those moves going down.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 02:44 PM) That seems waaaaay high to me. Adding 8 prospects should give you a big jump when a few of them are T100 guys, but not that big of a jump. To clarify, Callis said the Sox having the second best TOP 10, not the 2nd best system overall.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 02:19 PM) http://www.baseballamerica.com/viewpoint/r...VWVFZhKWsxKw.97 Man, starting to look good. Soon we may be in place where our 15-20 guys are players like May/Engel that have potential to turn bats around and become major leaguers. Interesting to see BA's list here. Collins ahead of Kopech, Basabe at #7, and Adams ahead of Dunning are interesting. But more to the point, I don't think I've ever seen a Sox top 10 list look so good.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 07:29 PM) Bleacher report suggested two deals for the sox Quintana to the Rockies for Rodgers, Hoffman and freeland Robertson to the nationals for Stephenson and severino Thoughts? Rather have Tapia than Freeland, but love the first two pieces in the Rockies deal. That Robertson deal would be a no-brainer to me.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) I would much much rather have encarnacion over trumbo as well If they can sign Encarnacion, as well as trade for Quintana + significant amount of bullpen help, then I would buy them contending for the West That pitching is just too crappy to ignore right now They have a couple good pieces in the rotation. Tyler Anderson was good for 2.5 bWar over 19 starts last year. Jon Gray had some awful outings, but he was worth 2.3 bWAR and struck out almost 10 per 9 with a FIP of 3.63 (better numbers than Rodon). Chatwood was 3.5 bWAR, though his peripherals weren't great. It's not a murderer's row of a rotation, and definitely isn't a contending rotation, but they have some good pieces and the lineup is going to rake. They really need Gray to continue to develop, and they need to add a TOR starter. But I can absolutely see why they would be patient and see how they start out of the gates before buying - particularly since Q would cost several impact pieces off the farm.