Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 07:15 PM) We're all going to be very anxious in the last few days before the trade deadline. The buyers are all waiting til the last minute to get the best read on their situations. Buyers seem to have the upper hand this year. Where have you come up with this?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 07:06 AM) Rios' trade value isn't affected by Ventura sitting him. It is affected by Rios dogging it. My point is Rios' is probably as close to being traded as more than half the White Sox. The reports were the Sox were dissappointed in what was being discussed. Rosenthal even speculated the Sox would have to throw cash and/or a prospect to take him off their hands. I think you completely misunderstood Rosenthal's point. He's not saying we can't move Rios, which is what your "take him off their hands" comment seems to imply. He's trying to say for the Sox to get what they want, which is near major league ready position prospects, they would have to throw in money or even some lower level prospects. A team won't take on his full salary and give us that type of return. Again, that doesn't mean Rosenthal thinks we can't move him or that Rios doesn't have value. I think we all take these little twitter updates for way more than they're worth anyways. Who is leaking all this information to these writers in the first place? GMs and other front office personal with a motive to increase the demand for or hide their interest in certain players. Every one of these updates should be taken with a grain of salt, because they're all mostly bulls*** to begin with. Rather, it's better to look at supply & demand and historical deadline trends to set expectations.

I wish the woman on the phone got hit in the face.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 02:00 AM) I'm 100% sure a full gutting of the roster doesn't take place. In fact I'd be shocked if 4 key pieces are traded . My key pieces being Peavy, Santiago, Sale, Quintana, Danks. Rios, DeAza , Viciedo, Alexei, Beckham, Phegley,Crain, Reed, Jones ,Dunn. I think it's all but certain that Crain & Peavy get moved. Same goes for Lindstrom, although he's not one of your key pieces. After that, everything is less certain. I think there's a very good chance that at least one of Rios or De Aza gets moved, and possibly both. There are quite a few corner OFs that will be available in free agency, so this wouldn't be the hardest position to replenish assuming you have some money (which we will). I just don't think they'll give either of these guys away. I also think they'll be selling hard on Ramirez. The complete loss of power is maddening and he's never going to be a high OBP guy, which is a serious team wide issue. The AVG & SBs may be nice, but his wRC+ is 80 on the season. Now, he's a strong defensive SS and that makes him valuable. I just think to fix the offense we have to clear out the unproductive hitters that don't have much potential to get better. That means a guy like Alexei should probably go, even if it hurts on the defensive side. Plus I think Hahn will be targeting SS's in any Peavy deal, so hopefully a replacement would be close to being ready. Maybe Hahn finds a way to dump Keppinger or Dunn for salary relief, but I'm not too optimistic on either front. I doubt we're selling anyone else either. I'm sure he's listening to offers on Reed and maybe even Santiago/Quintana, but Hahn would have to blown away to act on any of those players.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) Peavy done after 87 pitches? No reason to push him too hard given the situation.

Pulling Peavy after 5 has to be a Hahn call. Robin probably would've sent him out there for two more innings.

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) There's nothing wrong with letting a player dominate in a lower level before promoting them. Letting Hawkins continue to strike out in nearly 50% of his AB's does nothing to help his long-term development. The point is if he's dominating at a low level with bad habits, then he's not really developing. While I agree in principle, a 50+% K rate is just mind-boggling and something should probably be done to help Hakwins out whether that's a demotion or a time-out.

I just hope the scouts watching this game see the type of player Rios can be when he's motivated. I know he's been in a long slump, but put him in a playoff race and I think you'll get a player much closer to the April/May version.

f***, Rios should of had that ball.

Come on double play.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 03:50 PM) I wonder how many 27 year olds with horrible stuff and a career ERA of 5.10 get a lot of chances in today's baseball? I think he'd make a serviceable 5th starter in the NL. I don't see much potential beyond that.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) It's a player option. "$15M Player option for 2015 if he 1) has 400 IP in 2013-14, including 190 IP in 2014, and 2) is not on the disabled list at the end of the 2014 season." Wow, did not realize that. Thanks for posting.

I know it's only the first inning, but the stuff looks there for Peavy. So far so good.

Phegley making up for that dropped third strike fiasco.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) This is a nice piece about Peavy's trade value by Jon Hey man. I think we could get lucky and receive a nice little haul for Peavy. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heym...the-market-star That's actually a great write-up. I'm shocked he didn't mention the 2015 option a team would have on Peavy, but the point remains the same. He's one of the top 2 starting pitchers in a thin pitching market and is more than just a rental. There should be a half dozen teams fighting over him the next 11 days.

QUOTE (staxx @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) let's all pray peavy throws a nice game so he can rebuild that trade value, will be the #1 pitcher on the market once Garza goes. If he pitches well today, I think he jumps Garza.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) You know, for once, I think Marty kinda has a point. I still think the reason to trade Peavy is that the sox are already loaded with pitching, but "making sure Jake doesn't get hurt again while we're paying for him" isn't the worst reason I've ever hear. I think you're over-estimating how loaded we are with starting pitching. Sale, Peavy, Danks, Quintana, & Santiago is an excellent rotation top to bottom, there is no arguing that. However, Axelrod has shown he's no more than a #5 and quite frankly shouldn't factor in any long-term decision-making. I really like Johnson though and feel that he's ready for an opportunity, so I think we can definitely afford to move a starter. Having said that, it's not the end of the world if he starts next year in AAA. After Johnson, Rienzo is the only other prospect who's even close to being ready for a job and he may ultimately wind up as a reliever. So behind our strong rotation, we have one legit prospect, another question mark, and a fringe #5 type. That's pretty decent depth for now, but trade Peavy and it's gone pretty quickly plus you've instantly weakened your major league rotation. Again, I think we can afford trade a starter and Peavy is the ideal guy to move IMO, but if the offers don't come in where you want them to you might as well hold on to him until the offseason. You don't simply dump a #2 starter for below market value to give someone like Axelrod or Rienzo innings. You only move him if you can acquire a couple position playing prospects that can help you as soon as next year. Hopefully Peavy pitches well today, because his contract should make him the most valuable starter on the market if his rib injury is behind him.

If I were the Cubs, I wouldn't get too greedy with Garza. Right now, they have the most desirable starting pitcher on the market. However, if Peavy comes back strong tomorrow, I think a lot of teams would prefer paying a premium for the guy with another 2 1/2 years of team control than the pure rental. Also, one thing that hurts teams acquiring Garza is they no longer get a comp pick if he leaves. That rule change is going to have a huge change on the value of rentals going forward.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 05:22 PM) Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 8m Crain reported progress, threw from 80 feet, hopes to return in 1 week, might be ambitious Let's hope 1 week isn't too ambitious or we'll be selling one of our best trade chips for pennies on the dollar.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) Just what Dick Allen is saying. It doesn't make much sense to move these two guys if the Sox have to pay that kind of money to get rid of them. Like that analysis said, they have no value. Greg, for the love of god please stop trolling. First suggesting Baines as manager and now Rios & Ramirez have NO value? I wish people didn't believe you were a real person, because then you'd be forced to stop this nonsense.

Olacio with 6 scoreless innings so far. He's been pretty good in his last few starts. Not a ton of K's, but much improved BB rate, and he's getting a ton of groundouts. Given that's he only 19 years old, any signs of progress should be considered great news.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 05:56 PM) Yeah, sequencing is an interesting matter. To my knowledge, most attempts at judging the value of consistency vs. streakiness have been inconclusive, though I do specifically remember someone creating a stat called BACON (Batting Consistency) that was supposed to measure who had their hits distributed most evenly. If I recall correctly, Ichiro was the champion there. Ahh, yes: http://www.plunkeveryone.com/?p=95 I would think scoring runs in a consistent manner would be more valuable, on average, than having huge deviations in run output. If true, then a player like Dunn, who has a big impact on a small number of game (when he hits a HR) and a small impact on most others, would be less valuable overall then the sum of the inputs that go into his wOBA & wRC+ stats. Maybe I'm way off base, but that's the main reason I don't like Dunn.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) I wonder if you could see a team take a shot at Dunn after the trade deadline and claim him off of waivers, similar to how the Sox claimed Rios. I think there's a 0.5% chance he gets claimed, which is fine for us, because then we can trade him to any team we want throughout August. Also, teams are defintely going to want us to eat some money, so maybe there's a way to wiggle a decent prospect out of them if we pick up enough. If some team claims him, you simply say see ya and let them take on his full contract. No compensation necessary at that point.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) David Kaplan tweeted that he interviewed Bob Nightengale for SportsTalkChi Live today and Nightengale said that Profar is in play in the Garza talks. Hang on....wait for it...HAHAHAHAHA....I love this time of year. Wow, Theo must be paying Nightengale quite a bit of money to "leak" that nugget.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:32 PM) But the offense doesn't put up 4-5-6 runs a night, and the farm system sucks. Trading Peavy is clearly the right move to make if they get the right offer. And if somebody wants to take on John Danks, you do it in a heartbeat. Here's my beef with the dump John Danks idea. At some point, we'll have more salary relief than we'll know what to do with it. Danks $14.3 Peavy $14.5 Sale $3.5 Dunn $15 Rios $12.5 Ramirez $9.5 Keppinger $4 2014 Total: $73.3M Beckham $3 => $6 Viciedo $2.8 => $3.5 De Aza $2.1 => $4.2 2014 Estimate: $13.7M So right now, we're looking at $87 million in payroll committments for next year. That's $30 million less than our 2013 opening day payroll, plus we'll be receiving an extra $25 million in TV revenue. Even if we keep all the guys mentioned above, we should have plenty of money to spend. My guess is that we at least one or two high salary players at the deadline which would free up even more money. IMO, dumping Danks' contract for financial reasons doesn't really do much for us. We're not going to sign 4 or 5 major free agents in one offseason. And we won't get much talent for him right now. However, a year from now when he's 100% healthy that may change, especially if player costs rise with the influx of new TV money. 2 years at $14.25M per may be a deal at that point.