Potential Crochet Trade discussion Thread

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

3 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

More than half the league has real interest.  

I’m sure anyone contending does but only a few are likely willing to part with 2 T100 prospects for him.

[WestEddy]

21 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

I’m sure anyone contending does but only a few are likely willing to part with 2 T100 prospects for him.

I'd say only one team would part with 2 T100 offensive prospects, and that's the team that'll get Crochet. 

[Rey21]

Can we stop with the Crochet + Robert trade offers - they are not trading them both in the same deal - there is a much better chance they attach Benintendi than they do Robert 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

56 minutes ago, fathom said:

I don’t think they’re want 4 lefties in their rotation either.

I don't think you pass on a talent like Crochet due to rotation make-up concerns given that teams are using 10-15 starters a year now-a-days anyway.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

44 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

I’m sure anyone contending does but only a few are likely willing to part with 2 T100 prospects for him.

The only way Garrett Crochet doesn't net 2 top 100 prospects is because Chris Getz is our GM.

I can say confidently that the pushback is 1000% posturing and that there are people around the league, involved in talent eval and player acquisition, that have Crochet in their top 10 most valuable arms in baseball given his contract, innings pitched, and willingness to sign-on for, what is believed to be, a less than market-value extension (meaning his goal appears to be stability and not maximizing every dollar).

[WhiteSox2023]

38 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I don't think you pass on a talent like Crochet due to rotation make-up concerns given that teams are using 10-15 starters a year now-a-days anyway.

Exactly, and I will never understand this concept other than the belief that facing a bunch of lefties in a row gets an opponent “used to” facing lefties so they hit better against them.

Regardless of the handedness of the rest of your rotation, would you rather have Crochet as a member of your rotation or what would more than likely be a less talented right-hander?

[Chicago White Sox]

2 hours ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Why so? I like Arroyo, Stewart, Collier, Lewis. Could see a package built around two or three of those guys for sure.

I’d want someone with a higher ceiling than Arroyo to headline a Crochet deal.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’d want someone with a higher ceiling than Arroyo to headline a Crochet deal.

That’s why I think it could take 3 of those 4 to get a deal done. Whereas, you’re likely not getting another T100 prospect if someone like Mayo or Basallo headlines the deal. Given the choice, I’m taking 3 instead of 1 because the Sox desperately need depth at all levels.

[Rey21]

Maybe the Reds news is a little vague, I'm sure they're talking to the Sox about Crochet but maybe their main focus is on Luis Robert. Cam Collier+ for me would be interesting especially if they really are trying to just get rid of him to get out of the option in 2026 especially if they fear he could have another down year 

[steveno89]

8 minutes ago, Rey21 said:

Maybe the Reds news is a little vague, I'm sure they're talking to the Sox about Crochet but maybe their main focus is on Luis Robert. Cam Collier+ for me would be interesting especially if they really are trying to just get rid of him to get out of the option in 2026 especially if they fear he could have another down year 

I'd love Collier, but hard to imagine the Reds dealing him considering the upside 

A .798 OPS in high A ball as a 19 year old is rerally impressive 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Exactly, and I will never understand this concept other than the belief that facing a bunch of lefties in a row gets an opponent “used to” facing lefties so they hit better against them.

Regardless of the handedness of the rest of your rotation, would you rather have Crochet as a member of your rotation or what would more than likely be a less talented right-hander?

Roster balance is really more of a playoff issue for teams trying to compete. You don't want to run into a team like the 2020 White Sox, for example, who destroy lefty pitching and roll out 4 lefty starters in a 5 game series.

[JoeC]

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Exactly, and I will never understand this concept other than the belief that facing a bunch of lefties in a row gets an opponent “used to” facing lefties so they hit better against them.

Regardless of the handedness of the rest of your rotation, would you rather have Crochet as a member of your rotation or what would more than likely be a less talented right-hander?

This feels like a question for Tony LaRussa.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

4 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The only way Garrett Crochet doesn't net 2 top 100 prospects is because Chris Getz is our GM.

I can say confidently that the pushback is 1000% posturing and that there are people around the league, involved in talent eval and player acquisition, that have Crochet in their top 10 most valuable arms in baseball given his contract, innings pitched, and willingness to sign-on for, what is believed to be, a less than market-value extension (meaning his goal appears to be stability and not maximizing every dollar).

I agree. I'm not so concerned about who we trade with and who we get. The return has to be maximized and there are ways to do that.

You talk to Crochet's camp. You tell them we want to maximize what we get back for him. Would you be ok with us giving a team a 48 hr window to reach a contract extension with Garrett which would get us better prospects if a team knows they have him for longer than 2 years. The longer the extension the better our return . He might be willing to go 3 years with opt up after 2027 or even 4 or 5 years with opt outs in every year after the 3rd year.

Well give you a list of teams who would be willing to do this and you can talk to them all . 3 teams you get 72 hours to narrow it down to the best offer or tell us you can't reach an agreement.

The Sox should already have some idea what Crochet wants but they'll have to be sure to float that idea to interested teams.

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

5 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The only way Garrett Crochet doesn't net 2 top 100 prospects is because Chris Getz is our GM.

I can say confidently that the pushback is 1000% posturing and that there are people around the league, involved in talent eval and player acquisition, that have Crochet in their top 10 most valuable arms in baseball given his contract, innings pitched, and willingness to sign-on for, what is believed to be, a less than market-value extension (meaning his goal appears to be stability and not maximizing every dollar).

I'm not sure I'd make it sound easy to give him an extention or if you can describe such a thing as below market value.

The 2 years he has left in arbitration do lessen his value if he were to sign an extension right away. After all he does have an injury history and also has less than a years worth of full time starting pitching.

On his side of course is that he does seem primed to be a  180+ innings elite starting pitcher going forward. He waits to sign he could have a much bigger contract in a year if he puts up another healthy year of elite pitching.If he gets hurt in 2025 he really hurts his value. After all there also has to be concern about how hell bounce back from his 2024 innings load.

If he wants to prioritize instant security as a hedge against injury in his next 2 years this could work in the Sox favor. I wouldn't call it less than market value. There's just things to consider about the future that could hurt him or really make him very very rich. I think signing right away and getting opt outs can be a reasonable deal for all sides involved.

Edited December 4 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[tray]

2 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I think signing right away and getting opt outs can be a reasonable deal for all sides involved.

 

My own opinion heavily weighs in favor of doing that. I am among those who think Garret has Chris Sale potential and if so, he might eventually become any team's Ace, but certainly the WSox.

Oh "T100" prospects... Prospects do nothing for me with rare exceptions and as an example, none of those exceptional talents are in our system. For example, Colson Montgomery, our top prospect...no one seems to know if he can be a MLB SS or if he will even hit  for average at the ML level.  I think there are close to even odds that Colson either becomes a star or becomes a bust. Hypothetically if any team wanted to trade for Colson and offered any legit starting pitcher, I would take that deal so fast...

Edited December 4 by tray

[Chicago White Sox]

11 minutes ago, tray said:

 

My own opinion heavily weighs in favor of doing that. I am among those who think Garret has Chris Sale potential and if so, he might eventually become any team's Ace, but certainly the WSox.

Oh "T100" prospects... Prospects do nothing for me with rare exceptions and as an example, none of those exceptional talents are in our system. For example, Colson Montgomery, our top prospect...no one seems to know if he can be a MLB SS or if he will even hit  for average at the ML level.  I think there are close to even odds that Colson either becomes a star or becomes a bust. Hypothetically if any team wanted to trade for Colson and offered any legit starting pitcher, I would take that deal so fast...

How exactly do you plan on building an offense when you’d trade our only high end positional prospect for more SP and don’t want to use Crochet to add positional prospects?

[Chicago White Sox]

Not against something centered around Mayo, but don’t love their secondary pieces.

[WhiteSox2023]

8 hours ago, WestEddy said:

I'd say only one team would part with 2 T100 offensive prospects, and that's the team that'll get Crochet. 

Just one team would offer two top 100 prospects?  I find that hard to believe.  If you said two top 50 prospects, I could get onboard with that.

Edited December 4 by WhiteSox2023

[WhiteSox2023]

23 minutes ago, tray said:

 

My own opinion heavily weighs in favor of doing that. I am among those who think Garret has Chris Sale potential and if so, he might eventually become any team's Ace, but certainly the WSox.

Oh "T100" prospects... Prospects do nothing for me with rare exceptions and as an example, none of those exceptional talents are in our system. For example, Colson Montgomery, our top prospect...no one seems to know if he can be a MLB SS or if he will even hit  for average at the ML level.  I think there are close to even odds that Colson either becomes a star or becomes a bust. Hypothetically if any team wanted to trade for Colson and offered any legit starting pitcher, I would take that deal so fast...

You are right, and it sucks, but this is the way any GM would have to run a team when the owner doesn’t want to give any one player a large contract.

[WestEddy]

16 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Just one team would offer two top 100 prospects?  I find that hard to believe.  If you said two top 50 prospects, I could get onboard with that.

Crochet isn't walking into 2025 having thrown 180 innings in the last 4 years like Gerrit Cole or Chris Sale at their trade peak. Crochet has tons of potential, and looks like he's going to be a horse. I just don't think teams will be lining up to throw all of their top offensive prospects at us for that. If you get 2 "top 100" dudes, maybe it's a #40 and a #85, or something. (I guess that's 2 top 100s.) 

Getting "2 top 100" players is also problematic. I'd rather the Sox know the system they're dealing with, and maybe max out their value taking lower level talent. When you're trading for someone's MLB top ten guy, you're buying high. 

[Chicago White Sox]

Jim Bowden proposal in The Athletic:

White Sox Give:

• LHP Garrett Crochet

White Sox Get:

• RF Wilyer Abreu (25 years old | 5 years of control | 114 wRC+ | 3.1 fWAR)
• 1B Triston Casas (24 years old | 4 years of control | 119 wRC+ | 0.6 fWAR)
• CA Connor Wong (28 years old | 4 years of control | 110 wRC+ | 1.1 fWAR)

Unfortunately I’d have to say no to that.

[Bob Sacamano]

14 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Jim Bowden proposal in The Athletic:

White Sox Give:

• LHP Garrett Crochet

White Sox Get:

• RF Wilyer Abreu (25 years old | 5 years of control | 114 wRC+ | 3.1 fWAR)
• 1B Triston Casas (24 years old | 4 years of control | 119 wRC+ | 0.6 fWAR)
• CA Connor Wong (28 years old | 4 years of control | 110 wRC+ | 1.1 fWAR)

Unfortunately I’d have to say no to that.

Yeah f*** that. Those guys don’t help us much.

Edited December 5 by Bob Sacamano

[Bob Sacamano]

If Red Sox land Soto, push for Campbell and Montgomery. I don’t even need anyone else added.

[Soxfest]

2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Jim Bowden proposal in The Athletic:

White Sox Give:

• LHP Garrett Crochet

White Sox Get:

• RF Wilyer Abreu (25 years old | 5 years of control | 114 wRC+ | 3.1 fWAR)
• 1B Triston Casas (24 years old | 4 years of control | 119 wRC+ | 0.6 fWAR)
• CA Connor Wong (28 years old | 4 years of control | 110 wRC+ | 1.1 fWAR)

Unfortunately I’d have to say no to that.

No to that package 

[striker]

3 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Jim Bowden proposal in The Athletic:

White Sox Give:

• LHP Garrett Crochet

White Sox Get:

• RF Wilyer Abreu (25 years old | 5 years of control | 114 wRC+ | 3.1 fWAR)
• 1B Triston Casas (24 years old | 4 years of control | 119 wRC+ | 0.6 fWAR)
• CA Connor Wong (28 years old | 4 years of control | 110 wRC+ | 1.1 fWAR)

Unfortunately I’d have to say no to that.

I would do this in a heartbeat. You plug 3 holes.

Sox were ca: -2.4, 1b: -1, rf: -2.4. That trade is a 10 war improvement.

People are nuts wanting prospects. Why get some dude you hope is a major league regular when you can just get major league regulars.