ChiSox59

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 08:29 AM) http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6248 No White Sox in Law's 41-60. I'm expecting just Moncada, Kopech, and Giolito. He has Fernando Tatis Jr at #47. Yes, that Fernando Tatis Jr. Lol, wow. Shocked by this one.

Franklin Perez (HOU) and Ke'Bryan Hayes (PIT) are ranked 66 and 74, respectively in Law's top 100. BOth names bandied about around here in Q rumors.

Franklin Perez (HOU) and Ke'Bryan Hayes (PIT) are ranked 66 and 74, respectively in Law's top 100. BOth names bandied about around here in Q rumors.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 08:51 PM) Takes two to tango. Ask any cop or lawyer how often they come upon a disagreement where one side was 100% in the wrong...it's pretty rare. And nearly all pro athletes have egos that would make them almost unemployable in "our" world. Who cares? Eaton is a great player, but he obviously rubbed some guys the wrong way. If Frazier is one of those guys, to me, that means Eaton was even worse than I originally though as Frazier is widely considered one of the best dudes in the game. This rebuild was not about getting Sale and Eaton off the roster - those guys were the #1 and #3 most valuable trade chips we had. It fits some people's narrative, but its clearly not why this happened. The fact that those guys were a little bit of loose cannons is just gravy now that they're gone. But some people will spin anything.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 07:23 PM) Other than Soler, what elite Cubs' prospect has lost value for this reason? Vogelbach? Fringey. Huh? My post has nothing to do with the Cubs, and I was talking about acquiring pitching prospects. No idea where you're going w this one.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) All the same, I don't think the Sox should make sacrifices in deals simply because it's pitching heavy. They've shown an aptitude towards developing pitchers, with little towards developing hitters (Tim Anderson being the best in a long time). They should get players they feel create the best package possible, position be damned. And then what? Let their value go to s*** because you don't have enough spots in the rotation in a year or two - so you're either moving SP prospects to the bullpen out of necessity, or you're keeping them in AAA because there is no room? Again, I am not saying the Sox should take less in a trade to get a bat. But the headliner in a Q deal should be a bat. I don't mind taking back another pitching prospect, but I want multiple bats for Q. Taking a Glasnow, Keller, Newman + package, and saying f*** it, we'll acquire hitters later from our excess pitching is going to bite us in the ass down the line.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 02:00 PM) I noticed that. I'm choosing to ignore that. Well, maybe they realize they need to keep Avi out of the OF.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 01:48 PM) Agreed on Bummer. If I ever knew his name, I forgot it. He's a lefty. 59 in camp as of now. 32 pitchers (11 lefties) 6 catchers 11 infielders 10 outfielders (Asche and Leury listed as OF) http://m.whitesox.mlb.com/roster/40-man/ Also have Avi and Davidson listed as DHs.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) The White Sox need to acquire as much talent as is possible. I used this example previously - if a team offers three 60 FV pitchers or three 55 FV bats, you take the pitchers in a heart beat because it is a more valuable package. The White Sox are 2-3 years away from competing as is. Collect all the talent you can. I get that, and I don't disagree, but the Sox badly need hitting prospects. I am all for acquiring and hording as many top prospects as we can. That said, it is obvious that there is a premium on hitting prospects, so I don't think it is as simple as "oh well, we'll just turn Glasnow into a top 5 positional player down the line".

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 01:25 PM) Spencer Adams Aaron Bummer Zack Burdi Brian Clark Zack Collins Nicky Delmonico Jace Fry Courtney Hawkins Danny Hayes Michael Kopech Matt Purke Aaron Bummer is new name for me. I wouldn't consider myself a minor league expert, but I follow boxscores and the Sox top prospects, and not sure I've even seen that name before.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) Who cares about bats right now? We have the draft and an excess of pitching prospects to acquire bats. We also have 3 high draft picks before our competitive window and free agency to help out. Giolito Glasnow Kopech Lopez Keller Fulmer Hansen Burdi Rodon Jones Dunning Find who is expendable and get those bats. Orrrrrr don't waste your your last great bullet on pitching, and get a legit bat. Better to have it now than trade for it later, IMO. That said, if the offers don't materialize and we can land Glasnow, Keller, Newman ++, I guess it is what it is. Its not like I dislike Glasnow and Newman, I just want the main piece to be a bat. If Q can't land a top 10 positional player prospect, not sure how you can assume Glasnow or Keller can at a later date.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 12:56 PM) I actually really like the idea of Glasnow/Keller/Newman/ and Diaz I dont find it light at all Itd be a solid deal if we hadn't just acquired 4 legit pithing prospects in our last 2 deals. We need bats. Meadows + Glasnow or Keller + Newman + Diaz is much better move for the Sox.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) Why would anyone even argue? Unless you know exactly what has been turned down, you have nothing to argue about. As far as I can tell, not one poster here has any idea what the White Sox have said no to yet. But there are huge problems. It's ridiculous. It is really just a couple posters, and one in particular.

Honestly have no idea. My guess is not pretty. .201/.260/.310. Maybe 250 ABs.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 04:51 PM) There are have been two reports about specific packages being talked about with Houston I am not pulling anything out of thin air. Again, you're assuming pieces 4 and 5 in the rumored Martes + Tucker + Paulino ++ trade are meaningful pieces. You're also assuming that the Astros value Archer and Q the same, when in fact we've heard that the Astros declined a similar but arguably less impressive package in Martes+Musgrove + Tucker for Q (especially if pieces 4 and 5 in the Archer package are significant pieces like Fischer and Reed - another assumption you've previously made). So, yes, you are making major assumiptions that have very little validity.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 03:45 PM) I can reasonably assume that the Sox have been offered a similar deal that the Rays were sent for Archer and that the Sox are leaving it on the table because they want Musgrove or Bregman. Not taking much of a leap on that, and I think that's a good deal that makes the Sox better long term. Also if they had been shopping Sale for a year I would hope they have also had talks on Quintana. This FO can do more than one thing at a time. You say you won't make assumptions, and then you make enormous assumptions. Shocking.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 01:36 PM) Why is Hahn excused for settling on Sale (a superior player to Q btw) deal that was more realistic when he won't do the same for Quintana? He got the best prospect in the game, plus an arguably top 5 pitching prospect. Plus a super interesting lottery ticket OF. I think a lot here thought the offer was one player light, and I obviously would have loved Devers, but hard to call it settling. Nowhere near the same as settling for an offer like Tucker + Martes + Fischer type package. So much less interesting at the top. A comparable package from the Astros would be Bregman + Martes + Fischer + some back end top 20 lottery ticket Sox like. We obviously aren't getting that.

NM.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 10:02 AM) Holy s***, him and Andy Marte in one night? Sounds like it was same crash, so I assume they were probably together. Seems like a stretch that it was randomly two baseball players. I am sure we will learn.

Wow, that is horrible.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 07:04 PM) Quintana had just as good a second half from an ERA standpoint. Nobody is really making any sort of convincing argument that Archer should be worth more than Quintana. The $2m AAV is pretty much meaningless and the 5th extra year of control could just as easily be a blessing or a curse. Quintana is the better pitcher and he's a lefty. He's the guy the Astros should and probably would rather have. The original argument was the Astros could "easily" view Archer and Quintana as equals, I think that idea is far fetched to say the least. His last two years, just like Quintana, are team options. So there certainly won't be any curses.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 03:37 PM) Seems like there is a 1% chance of Archer getting traded I think the Rays would require a Turner / Bregman / Swanson / Benintendi / Moncada level prospect to even go beyond initial discussions Ageeed completely. Was debating the rumored Astros package for Archer does not mean they'll turn and off that for Quintana, Plus's add Reed and Fischer as the +2.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 03:28 PM) Melky had a very good year last year. I am not sure why he didn't get moved yet, but I think there is a decent chance his value drops. Hopefully he puts up good numbers the first half and has value at the deadline but he is 32 and we could also see a decline as well. He is due $15M. That's the problem. He'll be much easier to move next summer.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 03:04 PM) Yea I dont know if that was "misspeaking". Great response.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 02:41 PM) ? Yah, I misspoke there on the age. But the point still remains.