Passan: Springer to White Sox not happening

[bmags]

There are other teams that exist outside the cubs.

[SonofaRoache]

13 minutes ago, maloney.adam said:

Lynn can be plugged into the number two spot though. He’s a workhorse and eats up innings. This team needs someone like that, that will take the pressure off the bullpen.

That's why I am okay with the move i suppose. But he'd be here for 1 year and would cost prospects. 

[maloney.adam]

16 minutes ago, GREEDY said:

We need someone with the upside to dominate a playoff game.

The innings eater will be a thing of the past assuming there are no further rule changes aimed at limiting the way relievers are used.  Too much data showing you aren't trying to win if you let pitchers face a lineup a 3rd time.  And the next step from there will be not letting pitchers face hitters they matchup poorly with a second time. 

I understand that but outside of Giolito and a Kuechel who do we have that can be plugged into the rotation as a TOR starter now that will dominate a playoff game? Kopech/Cease/Dunning? All three of these guys haven’t proven that yet.

Edited December 7, 2020 by maloney.adam

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

27 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I'm not sure I understand the difference. Let's say we traded for Bauer last year and signed him to a 4 year and 140 million dollar deal. How would that be any different than signing him today for 4 years and 140 million, outside of giving away prospects? 

Perhaps there’s value in interacting with the player once he’s already in your organization before offering the big money deal compared to giving the big money right away in the free agency process? Red Sox did it with Sale. Dodgers did it with Mookie. Perhaps the Sox trade for Bauer last year and find out they’re not a big fan of his for whatever reason once he’s actually in the organization. It allows them to test out the player before making that long term investment. I believe they were considering the same with Machado before he hit free agency. I’m not saying it’s the perfect plan but if you are giving up relatively minimal prospects in return (say for Darvish and Lynn if those teams are looking to shed salary), I’m all for it.

Edited December 7, 2020 by JUSTgottaBELIEVE

[Flash]

Its apparent that reasonable people can offer/argue differing opinions on the relative value of Springer and/or Bauer. I do believe there is room for the argument that nether are great fits and, independent of how this organization has budgeted in the past, might not warrant the kinds of contract terms that have been posited. Machado was a clear difference maker and I believe WS were sincere in efforts to sign him.  Wheeler was on the cusp of turning into DeGrom and had all the arrows pointing up and made perfect sense for us to pursue aggressively (and we did). Springer is a great player but a reasonable arguement can be made against signing him (vs. other priorities) and Bauer looks to be quite polarizing and perhaps too expensive, although I'm not convinced he won't sign for < $25M/AAV. As much as we would love the WS to spend 'whatever it takes' to sign the FA of the day, I can't find too much fault in how they have managed this rebuild...even if it means not being more aggressive in signing FAs who many on this board feel we should.

[ChiSox59]

11 minutes ago, bmags said:

There are other teams that exist outside the cubs.

Love this post.

Like 75% of trades proposed on this site involve the Cubs.  Its nauseating.  

[poppysox]

22 minutes ago, fathom said:

I’ll gladly take a one and done

I understand the one-and-done concept but it sure would be nice to watch a dozen years of good baseball.

[SonofaRoache]

3 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Perhaps there’s value in interacting with the player once he’s already in your organization before offering the big money deal compared to giving the big money right away in the free agency process? Red Sox did it with Sale. Dodgers did it with Mookie. Perhaps the Sox trade for Bauer last year and find out they’re not a big fan of his for whatever reason once he’s actually in the organization. It allows them to test out the player before making that long term investment. I believe they were considering the same with Machado before he hit free agency. I’m not saying it’s the perfect plan but if you are giving up relatively minimal prospects in return (say for Darvish and Lynn if those teams are looking to shed salary), I’m all for it.

I think the Red Sox and Dodgers made those trades knowing they were gonna do extensions. Both of those teams gave up a lot. I see your point about testing players out, but we aren't in position to do that. We are not the Dodgers or Red Sox, we need to acquire big talent whenever we can if it makes sense. I am on board with a Lynn trade if we don't get Bauer. I'm not a fan of any of the RFs but I can live with Joc if we bring in a really good pitcher. 

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Perhaps there’s value in interacting with the player once he’s already in your organization before offering the big money deal compared to giving the big money right away in the free agency process? Red Sox did it with Sale. Dodgers did it with Mookie. Perhaps the Sox trade for Bauer last year and find out they’re not a big fan of his for whatever reason once he’s actually in the organization. It allows them to test out the player before making that long term investment. I believe they were considering the same with Machado before he hit free agency. I’m not saying it’s the perfect plan but if you are giving up relatively minimal prospects in return (say for Darvish and Lynn if those teams are looking to shed salary), I’m all for it.

I have zero problem with giving up minimal level talent for either Darvish or Lynn, and I have zero issue with extending Lynn a couple years if the price is right. However, the fact that you can do one should not affect your valuation of the other. If I'm trading for Lynn, I want to know what he's worth this year to me, I'm not going to give up Vaughn for him so that I can convince him to stay longer (and Vaughn was reportedly the Rangers ask at the trade deadline). If I'm extending Lynn, I'm extending him because he can be worth the contract I'm signing him for, not because I traded for him and I need to have something to show for the trade. 

[SonofaRoache]

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

I understand the one-and-done concept but it sure would be nice to watch a dozen years of good baseball.

The one and done is great until two years later. 2007 was no fun for sure. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

I understand the one-and-done concept but it sure would be nice to watch a dozen years of good baseball.

The Cubs gave 6 years of good baseball where at least they were competitive every October, including an NLCS appearance and a World Series win. If we have to be rebuilding in 2028, that's not the worst thing ever.

[Balta1701]

Just now, SonofaRoache said:

The one and done is great until two years later. 2007 was no fun for sure. 

The White Sox's run started in 2000, had 7 straight years where they were above .500, were disappointing on playoff appearances but had a title, then squeezed 3 more above .500 seasons and one more playoff appearance out of that group. They probably should have rebuilt a couple years earlier, but 9 years above .500 out of 11 isn't bad.

[southsider2k5]

47 minutes ago, fathom said:

If the rumors are true and Jerry didn’t even consider Hinch due to the cheating, he was never going to give Springer the biggest contract in Sox history.

Yet he hired Tony who has the biggest cheaters of the steroid era, plus the McDowell sign stealing allegations.

[fathom]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yet he hired Tony who has the biggest cheaters of the steroid era, plus the McDowell sign stealing allegations.

With all due respect, I don’t know how you’re going to handle this team the next few years.

[SonofaRoache]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The White Sox's run started in 2000, had 7 straight years where they were above .500, were disappointing on playoff appearances but had a title, then squeezed 3 more above .500 seasons and one more playoff appearance out of that group. They probably should have rebuilt a couple years earlier, but 9 years above .500 out of 11 isn't bad.

I meant the feeling after a title. Winning in 2005 is a great thing, but having that 2007 team would feel bad even with the title. Looking at it from that three year perspective. Having elongated success should never be a problem in sports. So yes, the 2000-2010 White Sox were a big success for me. 

[Stinky Stanky]

2 hours ago, maloney.adam said:

We offered Machado a 9 digit offer in 2019 and Wheeler a 9 digit offer last year.

Don't confuse me with facts. ?

[striker]

Encarnacion: -.3 fWAR
Mazara: .2 fWAR
Cease: -.4 fWAR
Lopez: -.5 fWAR

Although I wish this team would sign Bauer and or Springer, the bar is pretty low to beat on a team that was already good in spite of these poor performances. If you got 4 2WAR players then that is an 8WAR swing.

And you don't have to field your World Series starting lineup on April 1st, you just need a competitive team and can make trades later.

[Rowand44]

48 minutes ago, HOFHurt35 said:

How did "buying" a championship go for the Cubs?  While I'd love to win another WS, look at how miserable it feels to have a one and done for them.

I'd be careful in signing the next Jason Heyward or trading away the next Eloy or Gleybar.

 

 

Went fantastic for them actually.

[Jack Parkman]

26 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Love this post.

Like 75% of trades proposed on this site involve the Cubs.  Its nauseating.  

Darvish to the Sox makes every bit as much sense as Quintana to the Cubs did. 

It's a no-brainer for both teams. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[fathom]

Just now, Rowand44 said:

Went fantastic for them actually.

They literally played about five games since 2015 that didn’t matter.  It’s amazing how people think their rebuild wasn’t one of the best ever.  Hell, if they keep the team around for one more run, they will make the postseason again.

[southsider2k5]

34 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The White Sox's run started in 2000, had 7 straight years where they were above .500, were disappointing on playoff appearances but had a title, then squeezed 3 more above .500 seasons and one more playoff appearance out of that group. They probably should have rebuilt a couple years earlier, but 9 years above .500 out of 11 isn't bad.

Under the 2019 playoff structure, 2006 is also a playoff team.

[RagahRagah]

2 hours ago, maloney.adam said:

I’m not expecting a PS5. I’m just saying, some people are already giving up. The same stuff happens every year.

Every year we are promised a PS5 and don't get one. You're missing the point.

[fathom]

2 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

Every year we are promised a PS5 and don't get one. You're missing the point.

They didn’t promise anything this offseason.  Wouldn’t shock me if they still have no idea what their budget is.  I know for a fact the Cubs have different budgets laid out depending on pandemic recovery.

Edited December 7, 2020 by fathom

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

Every year we are promised a PS5 and don't get one. You're missing the point.

^^^^^^^

[ron883]

PS5 and the new Xbox are for plebs. You can play every game with people on other platforms on PC. You can get better bang for your buck even if you buy a prebuilt PC. 

I want the Sox to get a well built PC, not a PS5 or Xbox.