Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 4, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) How are they no longer options? lol. s*** is a little different now. But they're still there. The point is you can no longer switch major league resources to the draft and international free agents like the Pirates and Royals have been doing. So yes, the draft and international free agency is still there and is definitely important, but they're already budgeted for and that budget can no longer be significantly increased. So again, if we can support a certain payroll while we rebuild, what would suggest spending that money on?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 4, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) Like Milkman said, if you're going to completely gut the team (I hope they do), it makes little to no sense to throw $14-$16 million at Mark when you're not going to be competing for a damn thing for at least 2-3 years. Well, other than the sentimental bulls***. Which is no way to run a successful franchise. So let's say we are guaranteed to break even with a $70 million payroll no matter how competitive we are. You still think it would be stupid to resign Buerhle to a 3 year deal? What else are you going to spend this money on? I don't see a problem having a guy who will eat 200 innings and be a positive clubhouse leader and mentor to all the young pitchers we'll certaintly have. What would you suggest we spend this money on? Obviously the draft and international free agents are no longer options. I'm really curious to hear what you'd do.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 4, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) With the numbers of teams in on him, we have to be nearing 4 year territory soon. I'm starting to wonder if he actually prefers a 3 year deal. I would have to think there would be at least one team that would desperate enough to go 5 years. He may prefer having full control (no trade clause) and flexibity (shorter contract) over his future than simply the most years/money.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 4, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) It makes no sense for the Sox to trade upwards of 3 or 4 guys in order to gather the funds to re-sign Buehrle. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. If they trade all of those guys, it's almost certainly a rebuild. So, what's the point of bring Buehrle back in that scenario? Because we don't want to see him in another uniform? That's childish. You trade the 3 to 4 guys because you can receive something of value for them. Even if we're going to do a semi-rebuild, I see absolutely no problem bringing Buerhle back on a 3 year deal. I doubt he'd be willing to come back in that situation, but what would we have to lose?

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) Greg, I can't believe anyone would want one of the most popular players in Sox history to go play for the Cubs. He's got to be a troll. There is simply no other explanation for some of his comments.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) Ugh. That team might be able to compete if everything goes right, but you have to move Danks now if he's unwilling to agree to an extension. We desperately need to get maximum value out of him, even if that hurts our chances of competing next year (based on what other moves we make). Some team will be willing to pay a steep price for him right now. I wish it weren't the case, but we really need to add young talent and he's our best chip.

So let me get this straight, 3 years is the starting point for Buerhle, which is probably the exact amount of years the Sox would want to lock him up for. He wants a no-trade clause, which he'd automatically get by resigning with us. He's also willing to let the Sox match any offers he receives. Cowley basically shows we should be somewhat optimistic, but then says things don't look good. His bias against Williams is beyond pathetic. Glad to hear that Williams is asking for the moon for Danks and talking to every team with an open ear. He's our most valuable trading chip and it sounds like KW is handling this situation the right way. BTW, when is the Rule 5 draft? I always thought the idea of trading both Danks brothers in the same deal was far-fetched, but with Jordan off the 40 man roster and John likely to go, maybe there would be some logic to it. He obviously wouldn't be much more than a throw-in, but he'd offer the acquiring team a slightly better chance at retaining John long-term.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 07:34 AM) Honestly. I think a lot of people here are going to be disappointed with the returns the Sox get in deals. IMO, very few people are expecting great returns, so I think it's more likely people will be pleasantly surprised. I'd like to hear why you think our returns are going to be so bad. Even with one year left before free agency, I think Danks should be able to land a very good, near major league prospect like Alonso. Do you disagree? Not like there are many options in free agency if you're desperate for SP and don't have $50 million plus to spend.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 05:26 PM) Point about his arm not having mileage on it. I just think that as empty as the Sox farm system is, it'd be best to cash in the Santos chips now rather than later. If he becomes an elite closer next year, which I think is definitely possible, his value will be even higher. I'm willing to take that gamble if I'm KW. I don't see much downside short of a freak injury.

Again, if you ever want to sign another player to a club friendly extension, then I would not deal Santos until the deadline at the very earliest if not next offseason. It would send a terrible message to all players in the system if you moved him now. Plus if he takes that next step, his value would only go up.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 27, 2011 -> 04:16 AM) I'm pretty sure you guys undervalue everyone associated with the Sox and vice versa. Williams has made some bad trades, but he's far from the pariah you claim him to be. Every tenured GM in the books has stupid trades on his resume. Also, prospect lovers are lame. If you listened to everything a prospect nerd professed, you'd think the Royals were actually good. n There's nothing wrong with loving prospects, but there are many people on this board that take it too far. Yes, having a great system can help build a successful major league team, but at the end of the day there are no guarantees with prospects. These guys flop out at high rates. Even when you have one of the best systems, a couple unforeseen injuries or signifcant flops can turn you into a middle or bottom of the pack quickly. How many people here remember the Sox were ranked the #1 system by Baseball America in like 2000 due to their insanse pitching surplus? Future studs like Jason Stumm, Danny Wright, Briant West, Rob Purvis, and Matt Ginter led the way. These guys were all high picks, who prospect experts loved, and they all flopped. Guess who oversaw this #1 system? Our current GM who everything thinks does not know how to build a system. So when everyone wants to suck off the Royals' hitting prospects or the Braves' pitching prospects, remember there is a decent chance they will have little to nothing show for them. This happens all the time and has happened in our own background.

For the final f***ing time, Rios isn't leaving this offseason unless we eat 2/3 his salary or more. We have to give him a chance to rebound next year if we want any chance in hell of moving him without completely f***ing ourselves. The good news is he still has the physical talent to be successful and can only be better next year. I actually think he'll have a nice year in 2012, as I think working with Manto should help. If he does, get him the hell out of Chicago while you can without eating any money. If he doesn't, then you look into dealing him for someone's s***ty contract, which should be easier since he'll only have two years on his deal. Both options are better than simply cutting him loose now. As for Alonso, he's the type of prospect we should target for Danks IMO. Essentially major leage ready and with great potential, but is somewhat expendable to his current team. Without draft pick compensation, I doubt you could expect much more by trading Danks. I don't even know if the Reds would consider such a deal, but I think it's worth exploring. Also, I think a lot of people are vastly underrating Santos. The guy has the potential to be an elite closer and is already under a club friendly contract. If he can get to that level next year, his value would be through the roof. I see absolutely no reason to trade him now, at least wait until the deadline. We could eventually get a king's ransom for him, KW just needs to be patient.

Romine looks incredibly overrated to me. His minor league numbers have been average througout his entire career and he hasn't shown much if any improvement in the recent years. That scouting report didn't endorse his defensive/game calling skills either. He does have age on his side though. IMO, he's a decent catching prospect, but a top 100 prospect seems like quite a stretch. Seems like another beneficary of the NY hype machine. If this was the best we could get for Thornton, I'd be ok with him, but I really don't seem him as an upgrade over Flowers. Plus he's right-handed, so it's not like he'd make a great platoon pairing. I'd rather seek a prospect that can fill a different area of need if this is quality level we can expect. Might as well give Flowers a legit chance if we are truly rebuilding.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 19, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) Trade Dunn and Rios You just don't get how things work...

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 08:02 PM) The way you do a quick rebuild is by dealing a player with value. Santos has value. This isn't fantasy baseball. Trading a player immediately after signing an extension would be bad business. It would definitely have an impact our ability to extend guys in the future.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 07:24 PM) Don't need a 36 year-old first baseman, a 31 year-old SS, or a 29 year-old closer if you're rebuilding. You can't trade Santos just yet, would look pretty terrible to deal a player you signed to an extension before he ever plays a game under said extension.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) DKnobler DKnobler Kenny Williams says if White Sox can make deals he wants, they would officially be "rebuilding" 50 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply Now that's interesting. I hope if we decide to do a legit rebuild, we can somehow move Konerko for a decent package and then make Dunn the regular 1B. I honestly think playing the field everyday could help his hitting. How much remains to be seen, but there's really nothing to lose if we're rebuilding.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 13, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Trade Danks, re-sign Quentin for a year and deal at the deadline if they aren't in it. I really don't think things are this simple. First, you try to extend Danks to a somewhat reasonable deal. If a deal can't be worked out, which seems likely, then you gauge his trade value on the market. You also see what Floyd, Quentin, and Thornton are worth. If you get the right offer, then you move any and all these guys (although I wouldn't trade both Floyd and Danks). There's no reason to give any of these guys away during the off-season. You can always explore moving these guys at the deadline. In a perfect world, we resign Beurhle and extend Danks. That allows you to move Floyd, who should have fairly good value this off-season. That leaves you with a 2012 rotation of Beurhle, Danks, Peavy, Humber, and Sale. Stewart opens the season in AAA and serves as insurance in case anyone goes down or Humber or Sale struggle. He'd also be the guy targeted to replace Peavy in 2013. This would give us five starters to potentially build around long-term, with only two of them earning big money. Unfortunately, I don't see Danks agreeing to an extension we'd willing be to do, but trying to work out deals with him and Beurhle should our priorities, as I agree the long-term pitching situation looks ugly without them.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) If that's the case given his sub-par defense and position, he should not be viewed as untouchable. He's not untouchable if the perfect offer was made, but you do not trade him for pitching prospects. Even if you could get a pitching prospect for him of equal value, I'd much rather hold on to Viciedo. The injury risk for the pitcher would be insanely higher. Viciedo is a fairly safe player to think we can build around offensively. Why in god's name would you give him away for a couple of unproven arms that could break down at any time?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) I truly think that's inevitable. What we're looking at right now is the same thing we do every trade deadline. We think we have a chance when we really don't have much of one at all. We should be focusing on the future, not clinging to a false hope that we're still in this thing. I know we're not in a good position to fully rebuild with the contracts of Dunn and Rios, but we're not in a position to compete either, IMO. We should start taking bids on every single guy that will draw interest besides guys like Sale, De Aza, Viciedo, Morel, etc. Let Dunn and Rios ride out their contracts or trade them if someone is stupid enough to take them, and continue to build up young talent. It's going to take years, but these are years where we won't be competing anyway. Imagine if we had started to rebuild with that horrendous 2007 team. We'd be on our 5th year. It's true that we might not have done a good job of it, but we also might be 5 years into a successful rebuild. We just refuse to accept the truth that we're not going to be serious contenders. I completely disagree with you. If we bring back Beurhle and don't trade Quentin, Floyd, Danks, or Thornton, I think we'd have a halfway decent shot at winning the division. Our pitching staff would have the potential to be one of the best in the league. It would also have incredible depth, as you'd have either Sale or Humber and Stewart available in the event of injury. That depth would allow you to try and get whatever you could out of Peavy this year without coddling him and if he broke down you'd have a solid replacement available. The real concern would be the offense, but if you inject Viciedo in RF and move Quentin back to LF, you'd have significantly improved your outfield. You'd also have De Aza and Lillibridge as insurance in case Rios doesn't bounce back. You'd still need Dunn and Beckham to play like they're capable of, but at least our new manager should be quicker to pull the plug on a struggling player. With some natural growth from Morel and minor improvement from Ramirez, I think you'd see significantly more production from our lineup. Now, the odds of keeping all these guys is practically zero, but as long as Buerhle is back and you only move one or two of those other guys, I think you still have a shot at the division. I agree that the organization needs to start thinking about the future at some point, but there is no reason not to go for it in 2012 if Reinsdorf will support a $115 million payroll. If next year flops, I'd be cool with a rebuild, but just not yet.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) Assuming ~$115M payroll Buehrle comes back @ 4y/$56M Quentin comes back at 1y/$8M SP Buehrle SP Peavy SP Humber SP Sale Deal Danks, Floyd, Thornton, Viciedo focusing on pitching prospects in return. Beckham added to this list with Lillibridge taking over at 2nd? Leaves about $10M to spend on upgrades, 5th starter comes from return on trades. Trading Viciedo is pure insanity. We have maybe one guy in our minor league system, Trayce Thompson, that projects to be a middle of the order bat and he's extremely raw and hasn't done anything yet to feel confident in him. We desperately need Viciedo to develop into a #3 or #4 hitter by the time Konerko's contract is done or we will be f***ed offensively. I get your love for pitching prospects, but trading Viciedo for them would be a fireable offense IMO.

The problem with the current system is that anyone can take advantage of it. So yes, the Pirates can throw a ton of money at the draft, but so can the Cubs. The difference is that the Cubs have more dollars to play with. The Cubs can outspend the Pirates on draft bonuses, with the hit being a much smaller portion of their total budget. How do the Pirates come out ahead in this system? With hard slotting, the Cubs would have no way to cheat the system and would be penalized for good performance with poor draft position. Their talent inflow would be crippled, while bad teams would be able to take the best players available at more reasonable costs. This would allow them to use this money to try and improve their major league team. How do the Pirates not have a better chance against the Cubs long-run with hard slotting?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) From the sounds of it, the vast majority of items have already been agreed to behind the scenes, and this one isn't big enough to stop the CBA from happening for. The consensus seems to be a luxury tax on high spending teams instead of hard slotting. Oh I've heard that it's probably not going to happen, I'm just disputing the claim that the previous poster made that it shouldn't. He made it sound like hard slotting would be bad, which makes no sense to me, especially for a White Sox fan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) Because: 1. Several of the teams with high revenues like having the small market teams unwilling/unable to compete for big money players. I don't think the Angels are mad about Jared Weaver falling to them because of signability. 2. The players don't want limits to signing revenue to decrease the earnings of the new players coming in. Obviously I know why the players don't want hard slotting, but your first reason doesn't cut it. There are more teams that would benefit from hard slotting than teams currently taking advantage of the system. From a parity standpoint, hard slotting is a must. Sure, if you're a Red Sox, Tigers, or Cubs fan, you want to keep the current system. However, the poster who said there shouldn't be hard slotting is a White Sox fan, so his claim makes zero sense.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Oct 31, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) Hard-slotting isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't. Sounds like a tax will be imposed if teams spend over a certain amount in the draft overall. Why shouldn't hard slotting happen? I can only see good coming from it.