Guess the Sale trade

[Chisoxfn]

If we don't get moncada and andrew bentrilln no deal.

I have my fingers crossed that Boston gets to that point and a combination of Texas, Houston, Washington, and the Braves drive them there. Dodgers will be in it, but ultimately I think they settle for a lesser package for Q (more in the case that they could get Q without giving up Urias and I do think they have enough other prospects that they could make it happen).

[bmags]

To touch on the "debate" ss2k and I were having yesterday morning, I do agree with the notion that you want to use the Sale trade to get back some quantity, as we have a depth issue. However, you simply also cannot afford to trade a talent like Sale for a handful of "everyday" mlb players. Depth is important, but it isn't so difficult to acquire that you make it your main priority in a Sale trade.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, you've got to balance two somewhat competing considerations:

1) I need to get back high-impact players - all-star caliber type players; and

2) I need to add depth - I need to fill more than one hole here.

 

There are a number of ways to do this, but the way I see NOT to do this, unless we are misjudging the market, is to ask for another team's mlb-proven cost-controlled star (Turner, Seager, Betts, etc). While it would be great to have a guy like that, it likely just results in the Oakland A's scenario, where you are forever trading your cost-controlled high-impact performers before they become cost-prohibitive but never really improving your team's chances of winning.

 

What we'd like to do is really to obtain 1-2 prospects with high upside, but still far enough way that you aren't paying full freight for them - the cost you pay prices in the risk. This is your Michael Kopech, your Rafael Devers, your Yadier Alvarez, your Alex Verdugo, etc. In addition to these 2 prospects, you'd like the centerpiece of the deal to carry far less risk, knowing full well that you are paying for that low risk. This is where a guy like Benintendi or Urias work.

 

Ultimately, it's going to come down to a case-by-case basis of who your scouts like the best, but I subscribe to the theory of balancing high-impact with the need for depth.

 

Right, and this is where I see the LAD/BOS players being essential, because I like their 1b players a lot as future all stars. It's hard for me to see a trade with Nationals and not get Turner back, but I can't see them trading turner.

 

If Braves truly would give us both of their middle infield prospects +, that's a deal. if it's just one, it's not enough.

 

But you need those "not enough" teams to offer their best prospect to put pressure on BOS/LAD to offer 1(b) prospect + package.

 

I would obviously take Trea Turner or (would never happen) Seager, but it does create questions of how the hell we build depth.

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm sure this is posturing and teams just not caving in yet.

 

I think that's his prediction for what the team says when he is still here on opening day.

[SCCWS]

I think the Red Sox owners will push DD to make a deal for Sale. Those guys want to win and they know the Red Sox are on the cusp of having another championship team, and pitching will put them over the top. They need Sale. The Dodgers need Sale too, and I think they have an equally good chance of landing Sale, but I just think the Red Sox owners will eventually tell DD to make it happen... which would really be in the White Sox favor. Maybe they could still pry Moncada and Benitendi +...

 

Not sure their owners are that concerned since they have already won 2 World Championships and are raking in money with attendance, merchandise, TV and corporate endorsements. They even own the AAA franchise. They probably approve major trades but from all indications in the media, DD runs the show especially w the departure of Larry Lucchino.

 

They literally have a monopoly in New England until football season ( NFL since college football is not relevant)

[Chisoxfn]

Right, and this is where I see the LAD/BOS players being essential, because I like their 1b players a lot as future all stars. It's hard for me to see a trade with Nationals and not get Turner back, but I can't see them trading turner.

 

If Braves truly would give us both of their middle infield prospects +, that's a deal. if it's just one, it's not enough.

 

But you need those "not enough" teams to offer their best prospect to put pressure on BOS/LAD to offer 1(b) prospect + package.

 

I would obviously take Trea Turner or (would never happen) Seager, but it does create questions of how the hell we build depth.

I like the Red Sox top prospects better then the Dodgers top prospects (in terms of elite, more because I like the fact that Bos are position players). On the flipside, I like the Dodgers depth better, in the sense that we could deal Q without getting Urias (obviously Seager is not on the board), yet the rest of their top prospects could still be in play and they have a ton of depth, that I think would be a great fit after pulling a high quality package (maybe a little less quantity) from a team like Boston. In general, I don't trade Sale without getting two elite prospects plus quantity. Q I could trade without getting an elite prospect (top 5-10 in all of baseball), but a ton of very good prospects (lots of top 100 guys, including one or two top 50).

 

So when I think of the various teams, Braves / Nats / Red Sox are better fit when it comes to having two "elite" prospects. Dodgers have elite and Urias might be the best of all of them, but I view the secondary elite guy from each of the other teams as stronger and in a Sale trade, I want two elite (or one already existing good ML player) and then still another couple very good prospects. So for example, if Boston goes Moncada / Benitendi, you get Swihart (I think he is a given in any deal with Boston as the final piece) plus one of there other good prospects and then maybe a flier or something. Dream would be Devers / Kopech / plus the two elites from Boston, I just don't see that going that far (but If I'm Kenny / Rick, that is what I'm trying to swing and it is why in the whole form of discussion you are also mentioning names like JBJ and Betts as it is always a negotiation).

 

With Dodgers, I see Puig or Pederson as well as Austin Barnes as guys that I want to have to go with top prospects. For example, if I got Q, I'd be pushing for a package built around non Urias top pitching prospects plus Pederson (priority over Puig, but you might give there and get an Austin Barnes). Again, this are what I'd ideally be looking to get...reality is everything is fluid.

 

But if in two deals you could get Benitendi / Moncada / A couple top pitching prospects (Bos / LAD) / Pederson / Catching Prospect (Barnes or Swihart)....you are talking about a lot of guys who have ceilings and can immediately fill out your roster with long term potential improvements. There will certainly be growing pains, but that is a heck of a lot of talent infused to the everyday lineup. Rotation will obviously be a lot more raw, but you have new prospects coming in plus Rodon / Fulmer / Alec Hansen. Collins as another position prospect in the nearer term as well as Burdi.

 

[iamshack]

I like the Red Sox top prospects better then the Dodgers top prospects (in terms of elite, more because I like the fact that Bos are position players). On the flipside, I like the Dodgers depth better, in the sense that we could deal Q without getting Urias (obviously Seager is not on the board), yet the rest of their top prospects could still be in play and they have a ton of depth, that I think would be a great fit after pulling a high quality package (maybe a little less quantity) from a team like Boston. In general, I don't trade Sale without getting two elite prospects plus quantity. Q I could trade without getting an elite prospect (top 5-10 in all of baseball), but a ton of very good prospects (lots of top 100 guys, including one or two top 50).

 

So when I think of the various teams, Braves / Nats / Red Sox are better fit when it comes to having two "elite" prospects. Dodgers have elite and Urias might be the best of all of them, but I view the secondary elite guy from each of the other teams as stronger and in a Sale trade, I want two elite (or one already existing good ML player) and then still another couple very good prospects. So for example, if Boston goes Moncada / Benitendi, you get Swihart (I think he is a given in any deal with Boston as the final piece) plus one of there other good prospects and then maybe a flier or something. Dream would be Devers / Kopech / plus the two elites from Boston, I just don't see that going that far (but If I'm Kenny / Rick, that is what I'm trying to swing and it is why in the whole form of discussion you are also mentioning names like JBJ and Betts as it is always a negotiation).

 

With Dodgers, I see Puig or Pederson as well as Austin Barnes as guys that I want to have to go with top prospects. For example, if I got Q, I'd be pushing for a package built around non Urias top pitching prospects plus Pederson (priority over Puig, but you might give there and get an Austin Barnes). Again, this are what I'd ideally be looking to get...reality is everything is fluid.

 

But if in two deals you could get Benitendi / Moncada / A couple top pitching prospects (Bos / LAD) / Pederson / Catching Prospect (Barnes or Swihart)....you are talking about a lot of guys who have ceilings and can immediately fill out your roster with long term potential improvements. There will certainly be growing pains, but that is a heck of a lot of talent infused to the everyday lineup. Rotation will obviously be a lot more raw, but you have new prospects coming in plus Rodon / Fulmer / Alec Hansen. Collins as another position prospect in the nearer term as well as Burdi.

I think this is basically the wet dream of the majority of us.

 

Let's assume though that it simply isn't possible. Let's say you had to choose between these deals for Sale to the Red Sox and Q to the Dodgers:

 

Sale to the Red Sox:

1) Benintendi/Devers

 

or

 

2) Benintendi/Kopech/Groome/Swihart

 

Q to the Doders:

1) DeLeon/Bellinger

 

or

 

2) DeLeon/Barnes/Lux/Puig

 

Which would you choose?

[ChiSoxFanMike]

I think this is basically the wet dream of the majority of us.

 

Let's assume though that it simply isn't possible. Let's say you had to choose between these deals for Sale to the Red Sox and Q to the Dodgers:

 

Sale to the Red Sox:

1) Benintendi/Devers

 

or

 

2) Benintendi/Kopech/Groome/Swihart

 

Q to the Doders:

1) DeLeon/Bellinger

 

or

 

2) DeLeon/Barnes/Lux/Puig

 

Which would you choose?

The 2nd Red Sox deal and the 1st Dodgers one if I absolutely had to pick, but I don't particularly like any of those offers.

[Bob Sacamano]

The 2nd Red Sox deal and the 1st Dodgers one if I absolutely had to pick, but I don't particularly like any of those offers.

 

Yeah each one still needs more but I was think it was just a hypothetical and not an exact offer he would accept.

[steveno89]

I thought about that but I think the value we get back is really good with Rodriguez, Benintendi, Kopech and Devers.

 

Jones is more than just a throw in player in a Chris Sale deal. He was excellent this past season and arguably deserves a chance to close

 

On his own Jones would have solid trade value

[steveno89]

Sox had better get a real good haul for Sale or you just don't trade him. I'm thinking Sale and Frazier to the Dodgers for Seager, De Leon and Puig. Seager and De Leon are good young pieces to build on and from the Dodgers standpoint: Sale and Kershaw, are you kidding? They'd maybe be able to beat the Cubs next year, they'd have to be tempted even giving up Seager.

 

Seager is not going anywhere, lets be honest

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

I think this is basically the wet dream of the majority of us.

 

Let's assume though that it simply isn't possible. Let's say you had to choose between these deals for Sale to the Red Sox and Q to the Dodgers:

 

Sale to the Red Sox:

1) Benintendi/Devers

 

or

 

2) Benintendi/Kopech/Groome/Swihart

 

Q to the Doders:

1) DeLeon/Bellinger

 

or

 

2) DeLeon/Barnes/Lux/Puig

 

Which would you choose?

I probably chose 2 in both scenarios, however, I don't think I make either of those deals. In scenario two with Boston, I'd want another prospect and in scenario two, given what they are giving, I want to swap Puig with Joc.

[bmags]

If these were really scenarios I'd do boston 1 with 3-4 wildcards.

[iamshack]

Yeah, I hope they are both light too, but I'm trying to respect what some of the analytics folks are saying in regards to the value of the top tier prospects.

[Chisoxfn]

Yeah, I hope they are both light too, but I'm trying to respect what some of the analytics folks are saying in regards to the value of the top tier prospects.

The struggle I have is, if we move Sale and Q, that is two elite players we are moving and you have to know that the probability of an elite prospect being anywhere near as good as Q / Sale is just impossible. That means to pull a deal and have a decent probability of success, you need to get quite a bit of quality and quantity in the equation. Obviously for Sale we should get higher quality, but if we don't get enough quantity, then the opportunity for a deal to really make the club better (since it isn't like trading Sale / Q gives us a ton of additional payroll space to work with) becomes a lot less likely.

 

Realistically we have three guys who can bring a kings ransom of talent, with Sale being the most likely to actually get teams to garner up what it takes. Eaton and Q get undervalued to some extent, although Q's track record is so strong that I think his undervalue is still something that ultimately makes sense for the Sox long-term strategy. I don't know that anyone will give up enough to make moving Eaton make sense (and quite frankly, I don't see the Sox front office moving this far, as they could always see where they were and deal Eaton later). Then you have more of your Frazier / Robertson / Melky types who don't fit long-term, but won't bring anything super good, although I would say we should be able to get a top 100 guy plus some solid pieces for Frazier / Robertson. All three of these guys aren't necessarily bad guys to keep around (as they provide good veteran presences for a rebuilding team) who you can then flip closer to the deadline for probably similar value as what you would get today, barring injury (especially Robertson, who I think we'd be selling "low" on now).

 

Frazier, I have no problem moving him and think we can get a package relatively similar (albeit slightly less valuable) then what we gave up. Again, none of those are going to be elite type prospects, although you never know who you might hit on, but we most certainly could get a piece or two that becomes a long term positive contributor to the team.

 

Nate Jones is a wildcard because he has value and a nice contract, but given his health concerns, you could look at moving him and he could again bring in some real talent. The thing that makes us interesting is, despite being so bad, we have some players who can command quite the haul and really quickly stock our cupboards to the point that if we executed some good trades, on paper, we'd have the best farm system in baseball...of course you don't win on paper, but we'd at least have a different type of team to watch and a longer term view of being able to add payroll to get the right parts (and leverage existing talent to potentially fill organizational holes).

 

I truly believe Hahn and Kenny have an opportunity to do things right. People think of the Cubs "tanking", well the Cubs didn't have pieces like Sale / Q / Eaton (plus to a lesser extent Jones / Frazier / Robertson / Abreu / Melky) when they started the tanking whom they could move to significantly boost their farm system. Shark was really the only guy that they had and they clearly took advantage of that (and of course they did get lucky with Arrieta). So for those who say, well they spent more internationally or via free agency, well us having a better starting point to potentially inject the roster with talent is a major plus in the White Sox favor.

 

Not many teams get the advantage of starting a rebuild (if we go down that path) by leveraging the type of youngish, dynamic talent we already have to give you so many young, talented prospects. It is also why it is so darn unfortunate that we screwed up so badly in having enough of a system / smart enough FA moves to actually build a competitive team around them. Unfortunately, we half-assed it for too long to the point that it was impossible to have enough depth as an organization to surround our upper echelon talent with enough "quality" major league players.

[bmags]

I truly believe Hahn and Kenny have an opportunity to do things right. People think of the Cubs "tanking", well the Cubs didn't have pieces like Sale / Q / Eaton (plus to a lesser extent Jones / Frazier / Robertson / Abreu / Melky) when they started the tanking whom they could move to significantly boost their farm system. Shark was really the only guy that they had and they clearly took advantage of that (and of course they did get lucky with Arrieta). So for those who say, well they spent more internationally or via free agency, well us having a better starting point to potentially inject the roster with talent is a major plus in the White Sox favor.

 

Totally agree. As for rest, really need sox scouting to come through. In July, had we traded sale for Sanchez + from yankees, we would have thought a weaker return than boston packages. But then he hits 20 hrs in 2 months. Sox need to hit if they go any lower than top guys to get a higher return of quantity.

[Chisoxfn]

Totally agree. As for rest, really need sox scouting to come through. In July, had we traded sale for Sanchez + from yankees, we would have thought a weaker return than boston packages. But then he hits 20 hrs in 2 months. Sox need to hit if they go any lower than top guys to get a higher return of quantity.

I love that you bolded that post. When I was writing that I almost wanted to bold it because I get so tired of the argument, well, the Cubs had this or that or we don't want to be the Pirates or the Royals for 20 years. All of those things are true and if our scouts and front office miss, they miss. End of the day there is a bit of luck to all of these deals, especially when it comes to prospects, but hey, the last eight years have sucked and we should have a pretty damn good starting point if we do get big packages for a few of these guys.

[iamshack]

I love that you bolded that post. When I was writing that I almost wanted to bold it because I get so tired of the argument, well, the Cubs had this or that or we don't want to be the Pirates or the Royals for 20 years. All of those things are true and if our scouts and front office miss, they miss. End of the day there is a bit of luck to all of these deals, especially when it comes to prospects, but hey, the last eight years have sucked and we should have a pretty damn good starting point if we do get big packages for a few of these guys.

Agreed.

 

I guess what we are fighting is this focus placed on the surplus value of players who have hardly had a cup of coffee in the mlb yet.

 

To really get any kind of quantity, we may have to structure the deal with more risk in it than we are necessarily comfortable with.

Edited November 17, 2016 by iamshack

[TheFutureIsNear]

Yeah I really think people are underestimating what a few smart trades + 1 bad season could do. I don't even think the full blown firesale is necessary. Get the biggest possible haul for Sale and then trade Melky, Frazier and Robertson between now and the deadline. The haul of prospects + the top 5 pick that would result could turn things around rather quickly. Rebuilding and getting a haul of prospects while still having Q, Rondon, Eaton, Anderson, and Abreu (+Collins, Fulmer, Burdi, Hansen, Adams and Fisher not too far) to build around really isn't the worst place to be. I just wish we had a reason to have faith in our FO, but out of our control so nothing to do but cross our fingers.

[Lillian]

I think that one additional factor which favors Boston is that they can afford to trade several top prospects. It is quite apparent that they want to win now, and Sale could make the difference for them. They won't need Benintendi, with Betts and JBJ in their outfield.

They have enough depth at 3RD, to part with Devers. They can afford to trade at least one of their young starters, if they acquire Sale.

Despite Dombrowski's insistence that he won't part with Moncada, they don't need him either, for this championship run. Even if Chicago couldn't pry all of those guys loose, there is Travis, as a substitute for one of Moncada or Devers.

 

[SCCWS]

I think that one additional factor which favors Boston is that they can afford to trade several top prospects. It is quite apparent that they want to win now, and Sale could make the difference for them. They won't need Benintendi, with Betts and JBJ in their outfield.

They have enough depth at 3RD, to part with Devers. They can afford to trade at least one of their young starters, if they acquire Sale.

Despite Dombrowski's insistence that he won't part with Moncada, they don't need him either, for this championship run. Even if Chicago couldn't pry all of those guys loose, there is Travis, as a substitute for one of Moncada or Devers.

 

Remember they called him up in August because they do not have a LF. If he is traded, they have to find a replacement which they don't seem to have in house. That is why I thought they might be more apt to trade Moncada if they are going for a big splash. He is a player w/o a position at the present time. To me, Benintendi seems likely to be a solid MLB player. But most writers indicate Moncada could be a real stud if he makes it.

Time will tell.

[WBWSF]

It scares me to think that they are going to trade Sale for prospects. I'm almost afraid to find out what the White Sox are going to get in return for him.

[daggins]

This is more fun than other scenarios but feel like astros are giving up too much but I'm not that familiar with Hanson.

 

Hanson is a decent MI prospect who could be a bench guy or starter for them this season.

 

But I see your point. Including Frazier or Melky to HOU instead would probably make the deal more balanced.

 

Another fun idea:

 

COL gets Chris Sale

 

CWS get Brendan Rogers, Riley Pint, Ryan McMahon + 2 lesser prospects

 

This would be a really forward looking trade, since the two headliners are 2+ years away. Terrific talent, though.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Yay.....another Sale thread to keep up with. But i'll bite.

 

Sale, Frazier, and Jones to Yankees for.... (mlb.com rankings)

 

#1 OF Clint Frazier

#2 SS Gleyber Torres

#5 OF Blake Rutherford

#8 SP Domingo Acevedo

#9 SP James Kaprielian

#14 SP Chance Adams

Edited November 18, 2016 by ChiliIrishHammock24

[LittleHurt05]

I was gonna vote no trade, but then I remembered that 37 year old Rich Hill is the best FA pitcher on the market. And two of the top five are gone, Hellickson and 57 year old BFBC.

 

Somebody is gonna panic.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

BTW, totally changed my initial feeling of the Dodgers, and went Yankees because of the McCann trade. I feel like they are trying to replenish their system a little before trading off pieces for Sale.