Eminor3rd

There's just so little downside to picking anyone in the Rule V draft. If he sucks, he just eat some cash and send him packing. Since we have the worst catchers in the Majors, it makes sense to take flyers on guys like this when it costs next to nothing. Also, I would be shocked if this actually stopped Hahn from continuing to shop for a better C. Again, worst case is they pay the fee to return Nieto.

Ackley > Beckham simply because he's younger and thus has a better chance to figure it out and improve. I probably wouldn't trade De Aza for him given our glut of half-decent MI prospects, but I'd probably be happy trading Viciedo for him.

Beckham is a below-average Major League player. He is not worthless, but he is absolutely NOT someone that should block anyone promising. He's had plenty of time to show us what he is, and the result is a guy that should be discarded when something better comes along.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) I hate the trade, not the man. There's a difference. Why do you not like this trade? I think it's a great trade.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 03:25 AM) Not a catcher, dont need another DH.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) I'm really hoping this is just a precursor to a trade about to go down Either a trade or an indication that they are definitely planning on targeting a several guys in Rule 5. Which would be strange because C is really the only position this team needs to fill in a Rule 5 scenario.

Why would the Phillies do that?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) I am not convinced that Sanchez isn't Montero all over again, over hyped because of the organization he is in, but a bat that wont play at any other position and a glove that wont let him stay behind the plate. I've heard he's made some big strides defensively lately. The plate discipline got WAY better in AA last year too. He's a prospect I'd love to have.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) People talk about how they don't want to be perpetually bad, but then discuss the idea of moving Sale. That's the way you become perpetually bad. Right. I mean that's the Royals 25-year bad streak right there. They developed a lot of good players along the way, but they didn't hold onto them.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) The plan would be to get 3-4 building blocks for him. I would only trade Sale if we would get absolute studs back at multiple positions. Right but that's not realistic. You can't trade $20 for $50.

QUOTE (Jillian Michaels' Abs @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) Seager is pretty awesome and has the trajectory to be a Saber wetdream. I DOUBT seattle trades him now that they've committed 10 years to "winning" baseball. No chance. Seattle just pushed the chips in. They'll be trading prospects, not anyone that can contribute immediately.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) Jon Morosi is saying the Mariners think they have the pieces to get David Price. The Sox have to listen on Chris Sale. They'd be nuts not to. The offer the ends up getting Price won't be enough to make us happy about Sale. Age and contract add much more value to Sale. There's no way the M's will give up enough for Sale when they can give up less for Price. Plus, come on. If you don't hold on to 24 year old stars signed affordably through their age 30 seasons as building blocks, what are you doing? What is the plan there?

Lol, how does this make him a class act? I mean, I have nothing against him, but I'm not seeing this as something deserving praise.

I think they love Miller. My guess is they will try to package Franklin in a blockbuster deal next week. I'd guess that they don;t feel like their offseason is done.

Joel Sherman reporting that the Mets have agreed to terms with Granderson. Four year deal. Good news.

With three 1B/DHs on the 25 man, I'm guessing Abreu ends up getting 130-140 games in. And that's fine. 500-550 PA

If Abreu is hitting, he's going to be on the field.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) Do you really think the #53 pick has a better chance of contributing to winning than Curtis Granderson? I do! But note that that is a different question than "do you think the #53 will be a better player than 33 year old Granderson" Because I think the chances are high that Granderson's contributions won't be near enough to help our team compete in the current window. I think that the #2 pick, even if it is ultimately a role player, has an excellent chance of contributing to our team in a time where that contribution will help add up to a playoff appearance. It's a risk, of course, but there's big upside there too. But I still think that's the wrong question. Because Granderson will cost more than just the pick. He'l cost money that could be invested elsewhere and he' cost PT that could be used for development elsewhere. So the decision to sign Granderson is based on the value of the pick PLUS other things; the pick doesn't have to be more valuable than Granderson on its own for the deal to be a bad idea.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) Hopefully he is one to buck the trend, but the odds are stacked against the second rounder being a big contributor. History shows it. They have only signed 3 second rounders in team history with career WARs over 2. 2 of them are relievers Drafted 43 and 23 years ago. The other is Ryan Sweeney. Yeah, I mean the pick has a relatively low chance of being awesome, but it DOES have a chance, and therefore it has value. And the TYPE of value it has is extra attractive to our 99 loss team when compared to the exclusively short-term value of Granderson. So the DP compensation should absolutely be a factor. You can argue they should sign Granderson anyway, but I don't think you can argue the DP is a meaningless part of the equation. Plus the posters above are right to cite the players that have been good and rafted in the second round as opposed to just SOX player drafted in the second round. There is talent to be had there, history shows us that much.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) Just pointing out if the Sox signed Granderson and forfeited the pick, Granderson has a far better chance of being a better player for the team than that pick does. If you want to argue he isn't worth the money or whatever, that's fine, as far as the pick, it should be insignificant. You crazy! The second round pick is NOT valueless, thus your argument that forfeiting something of value should have no effect on the decision to sign him is just flat out wrong. What about Erik Johnson? Second round pick, yes? Had we forfeited that pick, we'd be down our #1 prospect today.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) Wes Whisler Craig Italiano Chad Huffman Kyle Lotzker Seth Lintz Brooks Pounders Todd Cunningham Dwight Smith Collin Wiles Andrew Knapp The last 10 #53 picks. The draft pick should not be a deterrent in signing Granderson. Brooks Pounders lol. Seriously though, it should absolutely be a deterrent. Granderson is just not that good anymore. Even if the pick is a shot in the dark, we shouldn't be willing to give it up for a stopgap on a bad team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) No, last year we could have waited on these guys to see if an improved deal would come along. We weren't forced to move the guys, at the worst they were dead losses. Frankly, it was starting to look like the market for Dunn could actually improve if we didn't show everyone our cards already. I know. I'm not sure what else to say other than to reiterate my last post. Also, the only thing Hahn needs to do to regain his leverage in trading Dunn is show that he's willing to go into the season with a poorly constructed bench. Which, it seems like he's willing to do. You can;t call someone's bluff if there's no bluff being made.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) Also, now is a time to chime in that PH is also a need. There was absolutely no one worthwhile to grab a bat in the most intense late inning situations And now there is. But at what cost? Nearly every team in the league has moved to utilizing the DH as a way to utilize depth effectively. The early innovators of this (A's, Rays) have seen great success, and there are so few monster DH bats left in the game. That roster spot is valuable -- especially if it allows some younger guys to get the PT they need.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) And now that everyone knows the White Sox have themselves a mess of a roster, they can drop anything they'd have been willing to offer. If you're playing cards and you reveal your cards to everyone else when they don't have to...that sort of hurts your ability to bet. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think this is a good move. I'm just saying that it might not be as big a deal as it seems now. Looking at 25 man roster configurations, for example, is a futile exercise on Dec 4th.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) And now we're in a position where any team we're negotiating with has the upper hand because they know the White Sox have foolishly created a logjam. Fortunately, the guys we need to move are all bad players whose contracts need to be dumped anyway.