White Sox Rebuild Thread

[Chicago White Sox]

My point is trading everyone who is good is foolish. The last total rebuild the Sox did was when Larry Himes was the GM. Carlton Fisk stayed. Ozzie Guillen stayed., and then they had the new park to add payroll. Trading Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Jones, all of them may wind up being pretty foolish.

 

It is fine if you expect each trade to go perfectly, but that is pretty unlikely. Eaton has 5 years left. Do you really think you will get something that turns out better?

I don't expect each trade to go perfectly, which is why making more trades hedges you risk. Let's say hypothetically Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones can all land four prospects. Let's assume on average 50% of prospects acquired via trade bust. Trade all four guys and you have a decent chance of ending up with 8 productive players across the deals. But only trade one guy and you could realistically end up with anything from four hits to four misses. The more trades we make, the less randomness comes into play.

 

So again, who would you trade is this rebuild was up to you? IMO, you pretty much have to move three of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones. Those are our big four trade chips and the only ones who will land elite prospects. If you don't move enough of them, then all we're doing is a half-ass rebuild and I'm not sure we get better in the long-run.

 

As for Eaton specifically, I'm not sure you'll get fair value for him. And quite frankly, I'm not sure you need it. Even if the rebuild goes well, you're talking about 2 or 3 seasons before we are competitive. So if we hold onto Eaton, we're throwing away two or three years of his surplus value. There is a point in negotiations where maybe you don't quite get fair value, but that you get enough in return that you still feel it's the better move long-term. And let's not ignore the fact that Eaton is at peak value right now, so there is a bit more incentive in moving him now.

[SCCWS]

I don't expect each trade to go perfectly, which is why making more trades hedges you risk. Let's say hypothetically Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones can all land four prospects. Let's assume on average 50% of prospects acquired via trade bust. Trade all four guys and you have a decent chance of ending up with 8 productive players across the deals. But only trade one guy and you could realistically end up with anything from four hits to four misses. The more trades we make, the less randomness comes into play.

 

So again, who would you trade is this rebuild was up to you? IMO, you pretty much have to move three of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones. Those are our big four trade chips and the only ones who will land elite prospects. If you don't move enough of them, then all we're doing is a half-ass rebuild and I'm not sure we get better in the long-run.

 

As for Eaton specifically, I'm not sure you'll get fair value for him. And quite frankly, I'm not sure you need it. Even if the rebuild goes well, you're talking about 2 or 3 seasons before we are competitive. So if we hold onto Eaton, we're throwing away two or three years of his surplus value. There is a point in negotiations where maybe you don't quite get fair value, but that you get enough in return that you still feel it's the better move long-term. And let's not ignore the fact that Eaton is at peak value right now, so there is a bit more incentive in moving him now.

 

I understand your theory but then maybe the rebuilding w prospects doesn't work. If you are going in expecting 50% of prospects to fail, then it makes a lot more sense trading for young established players. So we are better off w a Jackie Bradley Jr than a Moncad or Benintendi because Bradley is a proven major leaguer. Instead of Hahn trading 3 for 12 prospects he is better off getting 2 established players for each one. 6 established young players would be much better than 12 prospects

[Chicago White Sox]

I understand your theory but then maybe the rebuilding w prospects doesn't work. If you are going in expecting 50% of prospects to fail, then it makes a lot more sense trading for young established players. So we are better off w a Jackie Bradley Jr than a Moncad or Benintendi because Bradley is a proven major leaguer. Instead of Hahn trading 3 for 12 prospects he is better off getting 2 established players for each one. 6 established young players would be much better than 12 prospects

My post was only intended to be theoretical, so I'm not really assuming prospects are going to bust at a 50% rate. Having said that, major leaguers are obviously much safer than prospects, but contenders are going to be very reluctant to give up established players and including them will greatly reduce the rest of the return. For a team with as many needs as us and little organizational depth, we need both quality & quantity (and as much control as possible) and the best way to accomplish that is by targeting near major league ready prospects (i.e. AA & above). I really think that's the sweet spot when dealing valuable assets like Sale & Quintana. And the good news is there are numerous contenders in need of starting pitching that are loaded with prospects. The Red Sox, Dodgers, & Astros have more than enough prospects to acquire one of our elite pitchers without hurting their ability to compete in the short-run.

[Dick Allen]

I don't expect each trade to go perfectly, which is why making more trades hedges you risk. Let's say hypothetically Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones can all land four prospects. Let's assume on average 50% of prospects acquired via trade bust. Trade all four guys and you have a decent chance of ending up with 8 productive players across the deals. But only trade one guy and you could realistically end up with anything from four hits to four misses. The more trades we make, the less randomness comes into play.

 

So again, who would you trade is this rebuild was up to you? IMO, you pretty much have to move three of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones. Those are our big four trade chips and the only ones who will land elite prospects. If you don't move enough of them, then all we're doing is a half-ass rebuild and I'm not sure we get better in the long-run.

 

As for Eaton specifically, I'm not sure you'll get fair value for him. And quite frankly, I'm not sure you need it. Even if the rebuild goes well, you're talking about 2 or 3 seasons before we are competitive. So if we hold onto Eaton, we're throwing away two or three years of his surplus value. There is a point in negotiations where maybe you don't quite get fair value, but that you get enough in return that you still feel it's the better move long-term. And let's not ignore the fact that Eaton is at peak value right now, so there is a bit more incentive in moving him now.

Adam Eaton was a 6.0 WAR player. He is signed for the next 5 seasons for a total of $38 million. What is this losing surplus value? His highest salary the next 5 years is in year 5 when he is due $10.5 million.

 

 

If you aren't getting surplus value and you trade him, you should be fired immediately.

 

It would be a trade just to make a trade. People love prospects until they bust. Eaton and Davidson were ranked almost the same as prospects when they were acquired. One is a 6.0 WAR player, one won't be a 6.0 WAR player cumulatively for his career.

 

You hold on to Eaton unless you are blown away with a can't miss package. 2 or 3 years from now he still will be signed for multiple seasons, at a huge bargain.

[Bob Sacamano]

Adam Eaton was a 6.0 WAR player. He is signed for the next 5 seasons for a total of $38 million. What is this losing surplus value? His highest salary the next 5 years is in year 5 when he is due $10.5 million.

 

 

If you aren't getting surplus value and you trade him, you should be fired immediately.

 

It would be a trade just to make a trade. People love prospects until they bust. Eaton and Davidson were ranked almost the same as prospects when they were acquired. One is a 6.0 WAR player, one won't be a 6.0 WAR player cumulatively for his career.

 

You hold on to Eaton unless you are blown away with a can't miss package. 2 or 3 years from now he still will be signed for multiple seasons, at a huge bargain.

 

 

This and I've been trying to say this too.

It's unlikely there are a number of teams willing to give up the talent it would taje to bring back one of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Jones and even Abreu. Some of those guys will be here next year and maybe even next which is fine since some of them are signed for 4+ years.

[Chicago White Sox]

Adam Eaton was a 6.0 WAR player. He is signed for the next 5 seasons for a total of $38 million. What is this losing surplus value? His highest salary the next 5 years is in year 5 when he is due $10.5 million.

 

 

If you aren't getting surplus value and you trade him, you should be fired immediately.

 

It would be a trade just to make a trade. People love prospects until they bust. Eaton and Davidson were ranked almost the same as prospects when they were acquired. One is a 6.0 WAR player, one won't be a 6.0 WAR player cumulatively for his career.

 

You hold on to Eaton unless you are blown away with a can't miss package. 2 or 3 years from now he still will be signed for multiple seasons, at a huge bargain.

My point is if the next three seasons are a lost cause, then 60% of his surplus value is worthless to us. So let's say his hypothetical surplus value is nearly $200M ($40M/year), his effective value to us may only be $80M. Obviously you don't just give him away, but if a team offers a package of prospects that project to provide $120M to $150M in surplus value, then we should probably take it. Yes, we lose out on some theoretical value, but from a marginal standpoint we come out ahead when considering competive factors.

[Chicago White Sox]

This and I've been trying to say this too.

It's unlikely there are a number of teams willing to give up the talent it would taje to bring back one of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Jones and even Abreu. Some of those guys will be here next year and maybe even next which is fine since some of them are signed for 4+ years.

Then how do we get better? Only moving one of our studs in addition to the guys who will be free agents in 2018/2019 won't move the needle enough. We'll still be a bad baseball team with a mediocre farm system. We have to commit to a direction. That doesn't mean you have to move everyone right now, but we definitely have to move several of these guys. I'd say trading anything less than three of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Jones, & Abreu would represent a huge failure. This is the ultimate seller's market and we must take advantage. Most of these guys are at peak value right now.

[Bob Sacamano]

Then how do we get better? Only moving one of our studs in addition to the guys who will be free agents in 2018/2019 won't move the needle enough. We'll still be a bad baseball team with a mediocre farm system. We have to commit to a direction. That doesn't mean you have to move everyone right now, but we definitely have to move several of these guys. I'd say trading anything less than three of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Jones, & Abreu would represent a huge failure. This is the ultimate seller's market and we must take advantage. Most of these guys are at peak value right now.

 

They can be traded off in July, next off-season, following July, etc. Taking the best offer isn't always a good thing. Its laughable to think all those guys are going to go over the next 2 months.

Edited November 11, 2016 by soxfan2014

[Chicago White Sox]

Astros GM said he's going to be aggressive and push towards making a move or two before the winter meetings. I could see him having interest in all four of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Abreu and they have the chips to get something done. If they're willing to give up Alex Bregman in a package for one of those first three guys, I could see a deal materializing pretty quickly.

[Chicago White Sox]

They can be traded off in July, next off-season, following July, etc. Taking the best offer isn't always a good thing. Its laughable to think all those guys are going to go over the next 2 months.

What's laughable is to think they will be worth move in July, next offseason, etc. The only reason to hold onto to some of these guys is because there may not be enough buyers in a single offseason with the resources to acquire them. We may have no choice but to let teams restock their farm systems and let some of their low level prospects develop into more proven commodities. But you're also taking a huge risk that these future markets won't be a huge drop off from a seller's perspective and that these guys don't get hurt or see their production decline. IMO, our best offers for these guys are likely to come right now and we should take advantage of this unique seller's market as much as possible.

[Bob Sacamano]

What's laughable is to think they will be worth move in July, next offseason, etc. The only reason to hold onto to some of these guys is because there may not be enough buyers in a single offseason with the resources to acquire them. We may have no choice but to let teams restock their farm systems and let some of their low level prospects develop into more proven commodities. But you're also taking a huge risk that these future markets won't be a huge drop off from a seller's perspective and that these guys don't get hurt or see their production decline. IMO, our best offers for these guys are likely to come right now and we should take advantage of this unique seller's market as much as possible.

 

I don't disagree they have their highest value now but that doesn't mean teams are willing to pay it especially that amount of teams for that many guys.

[southsider2k5]

I don't expect each trade to go perfectly, which is why making more trades hedges you risk. Let's say hypothetically Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones can all land four prospects. Let's assume on average 50% of prospects acquired via trade bust. Trade all four guys and you have a decent chance of ending up with 8 productive players across the deals. But only trade one guy and you could realistically end up with anything from four hits to four misses. The more trades we make, the less randomness comes into play.

 

So again, who would you trade is this rebuild was up to you? IMO, you pretty much have to move three of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, & Jones. Those are our big four trade chips and the only ones who will land elite prospects. If you don't move enough of them, then all we're doing is a half-ass rebuild and I'm not sure we get better in the long-run.

 

As for Eaton specifically, I'm not sure you'll get fair value for him. And quite frankly, I'm not sure you need it. Even if the rebuild goes well, you're talking about 2 or 3 seasons before we are competitive. So if we hold onto Eaton, we're throwing away two or three years of his surplus value. There is a point in negotiations where maybe you don't quite get fair value, but that you get enough in return that you still feel it's the better move long-term. And let's not ignore the fact that Eaton is at peak value right now, so there is a bit more incentive in moving him now.

 

Hedging involves taking on less risk, not more. The ultimate hedge would be established and cheap young star players.

[Dick Allen]

My point is if the next three seasons are a lost cause, then 60% of his surplus value is worthless to us. So let's say his hypothetical surplus value is nearly $200M ($40M/year), his effective value to us may only be $80M. Obviously you don't just give him away, but if a team offers a package of prospects that project to provide $120M to $150M in surplus value, then we should probably take it. Yes, we lose out on some theoretical value, but from a marginal standpoint we come out ahead when considering competive factors.

Your theory is wrong. You want to hedge your bets by taking on more risk. That's not how it works. I'll take Eaton and his contract and his 6.0 WAR seasons and keep him around for when we are ready to go unless someone is willing to pay dearly for him, and makes an offer I can't refuse. Even when they get all these prospects, they are still going to need other players. Ben Zobrist cost Theo $16 million more for one year less and he's getting up there in age. Heyward cost $184 million. Lester cost $150 million. Lackey cost $32 million. If the Sox blow it up, 3 years from now, even if the prospects acquired work out really well, they won't be able to dish out those contracts. Trading Eaton now makes no sense unless you are totally blown away.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Your theory is wrong. You want to hedge your bets by taking on more risk. That's not how it works. I'll take Eaton and his contract and his 6.0 WAR seasons and keep him around for when we are ready to go unless someone is willing to pay dearly for him, and makes an offer I can't refuse. Even when they get all these prospects, they are still going to need other players. Ben Zobrist cost Theo $16 million more for one year less and he's getting up there in age. Heyward cost $184 million. Lester cost $150 million. Lackey cost $32 million. If the Sox blow it up, 3 years from now, even if the prospects acquired work out really well, they won't be able to dish out those contracts. Trading Eaton now makes no sense unless you are totally blown away.

 

 

Completely agree with Dick here. Trading Eaton makes no sense unless it's returning one hell of a haul.

[Bob Sacamano]

Completely agree with Dick here. Trading Eaton makes no sense unless it's returning one hell of a haul.

 

Agreed.

[Dick Allen]

We all mention Sale and Q and their contracts, and rightfully so, but Eaton may be the best bargain of the 3. Only 10 players in baseball had a higher WAR than him in 2016. He is signed for 5 more seasons for a total of $38 million. Rookies who go through arb yearly may wind up making more than that.

[Chicago White Sox]

Your theory is wrong. You want to hedge your bets by taking on more risk. That's not how it works. I'll take Eaton and his contract and his 6.0 WAR seasons and keep him around for when we are ready to go unless someone is willing to pay dearly for him, and makes an offer I can't refuse. Even when they get all these prospects, they are still going to need other players. Ben Zobrist cost Theo $16 million more for one year less and he's getting up there in age. Heyward cost $184 million. Lester cost $150 million. Lackey cost $32 million. If the Sox blow it up, 3 years from now, even if the prospects acquired work out really well, they won't be able to dish out those contracts. Trading Eaton now makes no sense unless you are totally blown away.

I'll ask you for a third time now, but how do you expect us to get better without trading our good players? Where are all these prospects coming from? You're not going to get much for Frazier, Robertson, Melky, & Lawrie. I'd love to hear your ideal plan, because honestly it sounds like you want more half-assing. Trade the garbage for C & D prospects and add them to a bottom five farm system. That isn't going to get us where we need to be.

[Dick Allen]

I'll ask you for a third time now, but how do you expect us to get better without trading our good players? Where are all these prospects coming from? You're not going to get much for Frazier, Robertson, Melky, & Lawrie. I'd love to hear your ideal plan, because honestly it sounds like you want more half-assing. Trade the garbage for C & D prospects and add them to a bottom five farm system. That isn't going to get us where we need to be.

How do you really expect to get better when you trade ALL OF YOUR GOOD PLAYERS AWAY?

 

You have to keep a couple around unless you are blown away. You do realize Eaton was "worth" more in 2016 than he will be paid the next 5 seasons don't you? He has 5 years of control. Unproven guys you acquire only have 6.

 

 

They can trade one of Sale or Q. Maybe trade Frazier, Melky and Robertson unless you are planning on not half assing in 2017. While links to Keith Law ranking the Sox farm system so highly would be common if you traded everyone away, chances are they all aren't going to work out. Why do you trade a 6.0 WAR player, 11th in all of baseball, who is signed for 5 more years at a total of $38 million, and actually say it isn't important you get surplus value for him?

 

I'm interested in the White Sox winning, not where there farm system is ranked. Top 100 prospects bust all the time. Eaton is far more valuable than you make him. And his control status is the same as someone who just completed their rookie season. So I guess you are all for trading Anderson and Rodon, anybody a team would give you a decent prospect to get?

Edited November 11, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Springfield Soxfan]

What is Saladino's status? I have read numerous conflicting reports. Some reports say that he is hurt and could miss most of next year and then today's Trib says he might be an option to be the Opening Day 2B. Any clue? While realizing this question is not part of the rebuild process, I am curious.

[Bob Sacamano]

What is Saladino's status? I have read numerous conflicting reports. Some reports say that he is hurt and could miss most of next year and then today's Trib says he might be an option to be the Opening Day 2B. Any clue? While realizing this question is not part of the rebuild process, I am curious.

 

I haven't heard much either. I had heard hes missing most of next season as well. Maybe the Trib is just clueless?

[Dick Allen]

I haven't heard much either. I had heard hes missing most of next season as well. Maybe the Trib is just clueless?

He has a herniated disc that apparently doesn't require surgery. Kershaw had one and he seems OK. Whether it's an issue or not moving forward, who knows, but he should be in the mix in 2017.

[ChiSox59]

I haven't heard much either. I had heard hes missing most of next season as well. Maybe the Trib is just clueless?

 

No surgery needed. I doubt he is expected to miss most of next season.