CWSpalehoseCWS Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:22 PM) Not to belabour the Cubs' stocking up of talent point: But they turned Soler at least into Wade Davis for a one year rental Vogelbach to the Mariners for Montgomery The Chapman trade for Torres/McKinney So why is the White Sox "pitching depth" actually a problem? The Cubs STILL have Happ and Jimenez, not to mention Candelario with no clear path to the majors. Schwarber/Baez all have playing time limitations due to TOO MUCH DEPTH...we'll see with Contreras, but he looks like he'll get at least 130-140 games at catcher. At any rate, they'll address their pitching weaknesses as needed. As long as they keep producing position players who make valuable contributions at the big league level, they'll continue to find trading partners for pitching help. They're honestly the exact opposite of each other. The Cubs had and still have an over abundance of positional talent and had to buy pitching. The Sox are acquiring an over abundance of pitching talent and will most likely need to buy positional talent. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They are adding talented players and playing into their strength - developing pitching. Cubs did the same thing only reverse and played into what they felt they were better at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:28 PM) They're honestly the exact opposite of each other. The Cubs had and still have an over abundance of positional talent and had to buy pitching. The Sox are acquiring an over abundance of pitching talent and will most likely need to buy positional talent. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They are adding talented players and playing into their strength - developing pitching. Cubs did the same thing only reverse and played into what they felt they were better at. They ALSO did a great job (at least for 2016) going after Fowler and Zobrist, which looked like a questionable deal for his age at the time. The irony is that the two most obvious FA targets after Cespedes last year (Heyward and Upton) were incredible disappointments, although Upton rallied in the second half to put up seemingly respectable numbers, but too little too late. To date, Heyward and Edwin Jackson are the only huge black marks on Epstein, unless you start criticizing some of his Cuban spending, like the LHP Gerardo Concepcion (and he made the big leagues last year). AND BACK TO Q TALK... Edited January 10, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con te Giolito Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 They ALSO did a great job (at least for 2016) going after Fowler and Zobrist, which looked like a questionable deal for his age at the time. The irony is that the two most obvious FA targets after Cespedes last year (Heyward and Upton) were incredible disappointments, although Upton rallied in the second half to put up seemingly respectable numbers, but too little too late. To date, Heyward and Edwin Jackson are the only huge black marks on Epstein, unless you start criticizing some of his Cuban spending, like the LHP Gerardo Concepcion (and he made the big leagues last year). AND BACK TO Q TALK... WORDING CAULFIELD, WORDING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:28 PM) They're honestly the exact opposite of each other. The Cubs had and still have an over abundance of positional talent and had to buy pitching. The Sox are acquiring an over abundance of pitching talent and will most likely need to buy positional talent. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They are adding talented players and playing into their strength - developing pitching. Cubs did the same thing only reverse and played into what they felt they were better at. I would argue having a plethora of young pitching is a little lower risk. The problem with those high price pitchers in the NL is the bad money at the end of the big contracts. At least in the AL we can turn an aging position player into a DH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:35 PM) WORDING CAULFIELD, WORDING Good thing I'm not doing the Academy Award presentations for Fences, Hidden Figures and Moonlight. OTOH, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only white person not in the film industry to have watched all three of those movies...!!! Plus, Concepcion is Cuban, which makes him non-white Hispanic and not African-American/black. So I guess I can throw Ian Stewart in there to balance things out and be politically correct. Edited January 10, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:28 PM) They're honestly the exact opposite of each other. The Cubs had and still have an over abundance of positional talent and had to buy pitching. The Sox are acquiring an over abundance of pitching talent and will most likely need to buy positional talent. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They are adding talented players and playing into their strength - developing pitching. Cubs did the same thing only reverse and played into what they felt they were better at. The problem is we've seen the sox try buying position players and were its gotten them. Having pitching helps but if you cant put together the position side then you are right back where you started. Sox need to be working on getting position players back with the rest of the chips they have. They have no future 3rd baseman, 1st baseman, dh, and need more outfield depth. They dont have much catching until collins gets here which is a couple years away and thats if he fully stcks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) Every team would like to have a stud like Jose Quintana. But which club will pay the price in prospects? https://t.co/9I6L3tZWjw #HotStove https://t.co/FeRffkHWgd https://twitter.com/MLB/status/818632534552547328 Only thing i had an issue is with them calling Quintana a 2 or 3 starter. Hes a number 1 or 2 on most teams Edited January 10, 2017 by WhiteSoxLifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:50 PM) The problem is we've seen the sox try buying position players and were its gotten them. Having pitching helps but if you cant put together the position side then you are right back where you started. Sox need to be working on getting position players back with the rest of the chips they have. They have no future 3rd baseman, 1st baseman, dh, and need more outfield depth. They dont have much catching until collins gets here which is a couple years away and thats if he fully stcks. Yes, but those are mostly 30+ FA "money-based" acquisitions. Trading pitching talent for positional talent isn't impossible. See Eaton for Santiago, or acquiring Carlos Quentin for another younger hitter. Theoretically, they also could have used Addison Reed and Sergio Santos to acquire positional talent back as well, but we know what happened there. Then there's Abreu and Alexei Ramirez, not to mention Japanese/Korean players. As far as Collins goes, they don't need to really begin to think about the catching situation until one year from now...depending on how close they are to fielding a competitive team in 2018. They've already addressed the veteran/pitch framer issue by bringing back Soto for one season. We just have to be patient. Edited January 10, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 We gonna get our rumbunter on again? https://twitter.com/rumbunter/status/818638418213224449 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:59 PM) Yes, but those are mostly 30+ FA "money-based" acquisitions. Trading pitching talent for positional talent isn't impossible. See Eaton for Santiago, or acquiring Carlos Quentin for another younger hitter. Theoretically, they also could have used Addison Reed and Sergio Santos to acquire positional talent back as well, but we know what happened there. Then there's Abreu and Alexei Ramirez, not to mention Japanese/Korean players. As far as Collins goes, they don't need to really begin to think about the catching situation until one year from now...depending on how close they are to fielding a competitive team in 2018. They've already addressed the veteran/pitch framer issue by bringing back Soto for one season. We just have to be patient. Again those 30+ free agent acquisitions are because they dont poney up for younger or better players. Yes you can trade pitching for position players but again thats what the sox had to do before and look where it got them. They've had to either trade for or pay for positions players alot over the years and hasnt gotten them no where. Sox wont go in a couple years and start throwing money at the harpers and machados of the world. They shouldn't start gutting their depth of pitching to bring in position players and weaken the depth. Quintana is one of the last blue chips left so they need to get at least 3 position players back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:08 PM) We gonna get our rumbunter on again? https://twitter.com/rumbunter/status/818638418213224449 3 prospects, but no Meadows? Ehhhh. I could only imagine Glasnow, Bell and Newman would be the offer in that case. But if we're only taking three, I want Meadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:11 PM) 3 prospects, but no Meadows? Ehhhh. I could only imagine Glasnow, Bell and Newman would be the offer in that case. But if we're only taking three, I want Meadows. The tweet is great because it is nothing remarkable. Sox want Meadows? Pirates are offering prospects? We knew none of this! Edit: not criticizing rumbunter just not going to get in a tizzy over the info which largely boils down to "pirates interested in Q" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:12 PM) The tweet is great because it is nothing remarkable. Sox want Meadows? Pirates are offering prospects? We knew none of this! The number of prospects is interesting, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southwest Sider Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:11 PM) 3 prospects, but no Meadows? Ehhhh. I could only imagine Glasnow, Bell and Newman would be the offer in that case. But if we're only taking three, I want Meadows. Yeah, it's pretty silly that there's not a package of 4 prospects on the table. 3 is too light unless it includes Meadows. Pittsburgh should understand this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Would be pissed if it's Glasnow,Newman and a prospect not Bell (assuming no meadows) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSpalehoseCWS Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:50 PM) The problem is we've seen the sox try buying position players and were its gotten them. Having pitching helps but if you cant put together the position side then you are right back where you started. Sox need to be working on getting position players back with the rest of the chips they have. They have no future 3rd baseman, 1st baseman, dh, and need more outfield depth. They dont have much catching until collins gets here which is a couple years away and thats if he fully stcks. They also had Danish, Holmberg, and Volstad as the closest thing to starter depth before the Sale and Eaton trades. Pitching wins ball games; hitting wins ball games - it's an argument of opinion. The Sox have proven the past decade they struggle when it comes to developing MLB hitters, which makes me very worried if they were to turn around and trade for nothing but young positional prospects. Let them develop these young pitchers (which we know they are better than most), and then sign positional talent to plug holes. They still have at least 2 more off seasons to go along with 2 more drafts. There will be more opportunities to add positional prospects. We don't know what shape the organization will be in financially in 2018/2019. They might just be able to go after some of the premium talent available in those FA classes. Man... Hurry up Hahn and get this over with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Rum Bunter also says the Pirates are less likely to trade Bell than Meadows. If that's the case, the 3 player package is most likely Glasnow/Newman/Keller which would be disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Guys if Meadows was already on the table Q would be a pirate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 03:21 AM) Guys if Meadows was already on the table Q would be a pirate. Agreed just hate the idea of Newman being the 2nd best bat we get in return for three best trade chips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:21 PM) Guys if Meadows was already on the table Q would be a pirate. If they want Meadows they wont get him. Pirates cant trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:21 PM) Guys if Meadows was already on the table Q would be a pirate. Agree with that. In the end, I expect Quintana on the Astros without Bregman involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:24 PM) If they want Meadows they wont get him. Pirates cant trade him. Yeah, they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSpalehoseCWS Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:17 PM) Rum Bunter also says the Pirates are less likely to trade Bell than Meadows. If that's the case, the 3 player package is most likely Glasnow/Newman/Keller which would be disappointing. I'd be very shocked if Hahn accepted that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiks12 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 If there is no Bell or Meadows and the package is only 3 prospects then I say move on from Pitt. Q is worth more than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxcessful Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I'm increasingly tired of the argument the white sod can't develop positional players. Their issue is they are inept at scouting drafting and signing positional players. You can't develop when ability is zero which has seemed to be our criteria for drafting prior to our new team last year.even those who have succeeded elsewhere have been modest So the question isn't can we develop talent that never existed but can the current team maximize talent acquired. I'll take boa and hope Chris Getz locks buddy bell in his garage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts