Is trading Paulie an option?

[Fantl916]

Curious if anyone believes that it could be good for the team long term future to trade Paulie. While on the surface I am opposed to it, it's a solid discussion point.

 

Pros:

-Paulie is the one player on the roster that could bring the biggest return. He's an all-star caliber 1b and a team needing a power bat could feasibly provide a sweet package of prospects to get him.

-He's getting older, and we'd be selling high to say the least

-There are options. While not necessarily good ones, you can start with Dunn. Perhaps getting him back to playing the field keeps him more engaged and he hits better. If not, Quentin/Viciedo could fit here as well.

 

Cons:

- He's our team leader, captain, and best player. Guys like this often are your franchise centerpieces and not trade material unless you're doing a massive rebuild

- He's relatively affordable for his production and is only signed through the next two years which gives us the option to pay him appropriately to finish his career here

- His replacements...

 

While I understand that trading your most productive player is bad business, could it make sense in our current situation? THink about it: we have Peavy on our books for this year, Rios for the next four and Dunn for the next three. Peavy aside, that's more than 25$ tied to two underacheiving players heading into Paulie's walk year and beyond. If we hold Paulie and play it out then our competiveness is tied to Rios and Dunn's production, while having no financial means to supplement what's already in place. We would be dependent on trades of Danks, CQ, etc. to provide reinforcements.

 

If indeed a "youth movement" is taking place, this perhaps we should explore trading our aging vets. Everyone's talking about trading CQ but the return is likely mediocre, one that is sure to bring out mass anger on this message board. Perhaps trading Paulie allows us to keep Danks and Quentin and move forward with the additional youth gained from a PK trade?

 

I'm not condoning this, just guaging the temperature of the Sox folk out there on how we could possibly position ourselves for success 2-4 years from now with our contract situations.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Fantl916

[Baines3]

He is our leader on the field we can't afford to lose him.

[BigSqwert]

I'm not sure that he'd bring back the biggest return since he's older and is locked into a pricey contract.

[chetkincaid]

If the Sox are going in to full rebuild mode, then you absolutely trade him. First, you owe it to the man to let him go to a place where he has a chance to win another ring before his career ends. Secondly, you get whatever you can get for him while he's still hot. You wait until the trade deadline when teams get desperate and you can get a haul. Thirdly, I don't know if Paulie is all that vocal or influential in the clubhouse. He doesn't seem like the leader people make him out to be. I don't know how much his presence off of the field will be missed anyway.

 

If the Sox are going to go young, get what you can for the guy and let him go somewhere else that has a shot at winning.

 

But if the Sox are going to do this hybrid go young but still compete thing, then hell no you don't trade him.

[Wedge]

The correct answer is almost always "it depends". In this case, it depends on what we would get back in a trade for Konerko.

 

Considering:

-his contract is pretty reasonable

-he's the emotional leader

-he's the team's best player

-fan favorite, potentially one of the last ties back to 2005

-most good teams have a pretty good 1B and some sort of a solution at DH

 

I really doubt we'd "get value" in a trade for Konerko.

[southsider2k5]

Unless you are willing to go into a full blown youth movement, which is impossible right now anyway, and see attendance literally drop to about half of what it is now, you don't trade Konerko unless the return involves someone like Bryce Harper.

[elrockinMT]

I'm not sure that he'd bring back the biggest return since he's older and is locked into a pricey contract.

 

 

The Sox are the only team that trades away their prospects for an older and pricey player(s)

[SoxAce]

Absolutely, but the sox would never do it. (though I still love what KW did in asking for Paul Goldschmidt anyways at the waiver wire, especially since the D-Backs have wanted Konerko for years until his emergence)

Edited October 10, 2011 by SoxAce

[Tuna]

Unless you are willing to go into a full blown youth movement, which is impossible right now anyway, and see attendance literally drop to about half of what it is now, you don't trade Konerko unless the return involves someone like Bryce Harper.

 

This. We still have bills to pay. I don't know that there's a way to have a full blown youth movement and still pay some of these contracts we can't get rid of.

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

The correct answer is almost always "it depends". In this case, it depends on what we would get back in a trade for Konerko.

 

Considering:

-his contract is pretty reasonable

-he's the emotional leader

-he's the team's best player

-fan favorite, potentially one of the last ties back to 2005

-most good teams have a pretty good 1B and some sort of a solution at DH

 

I really doubt we'd "get value" in a trade for Konerko.

This. You get blown away by an offer you have to pull the trigger.

[chw42]

If you can get a couple of top 20 prospects, then by all means, do it. He's not getting any younger. I don't care how great of a hitter he is, if we're gonna rebuild, trade him for the right price.

[harfman77]

He is our leader on the field we can't afford to lose him.

 

Can't afford to lose him why? He may be the difference between 70 and 80 wins, but really does that even make a difference if you are not contending.

 

The older he gets, the less valuable he will be. Move him if you can find someone that will give you something of value in return. Matching a team that will take PK with one he would accept a trade to is the hard part.

[Soxfest]

JR may not let him go now.

[greg775]

Can't afford to lose him why? He may be the difference between 70 and 80 wins, but really does that even make a difference if you are not contending.

 

The older he gets, the less valuable he will be. Move him if you can find someone that will give you something of value in return. Matching a team that will take PK with one he would accept a trade to is the hard part.

 

If the Sox start winning 70 games a season, how long before the team moves?

Seriously, once the hope is gone, won't the ticket sales dwindle to nothing? Or is this team so solid after the WS it will never have to consider moving again?

These are the White Sox we're talking about, not the Cubs and their automatic sellouts.

I do think there's a good chance he's dealt when Buehrle signs with another team, though. After that, we may see the dismantling of the team in terms of guys other teams may still want.

[southsider2k5]

If the Sox start winning 70 games a season, how long before the team moves?

Seriously, once the hope is gone, won't the ticket sales dwindle to nothing? Or is this team so solid after the WS it will never have to consider moving again?

These are the White Sox we're talking about, not the Cubs and their automatic sellouts.

I do think there's a good chance he's dealt when Buehrle signs with another team, though. After that, we may see the dismantling of the team in terms of guys other teams may still want.

 

It will be a really, really long time. They have a lease.

[harfman77]

If the Sox start winning 70 games a season, how long before the team moves?

Seriously, once the hope is gone, won't the ticket sales dwindle to nothing? Or is this team so solid after the WS it will never have to consider moving again?

These are the White Sox we're talking about, not the Cubs and their automatic sellouts.

I do think there's a good chance he's dealt when Buehrle signs with another team, though. After that, we may see the dismantling of the team in terms of guys other teams may still want.

 

 

Where exactly are they going to move? Baseball isnt exactly booming and there really are not very many markets that make sense.

[Balta1701]

If you can get a couple of top 20 prospects, then by all means, do it. He's not getting any younger. I don't care how great of a hitter he is, if we're gonna rebuild, trade him for the right price.

By definition...there are only 20 "Top 20 prospects" in the game. The number of teams that have multiple is likely countable on 1 hand.

[Dick Allen]

They can't get rid of him. When Ventura gets kicked out of a game, won't KW want Paulie to run the team?

[jwmann2]

Curious if anyone believes that it could be good for the team long term future to trade Paulie. While on the surface I am opposed to it, it's a solid discussion point.

 

Pros:

-Paulie is the one player on the roster that could bring the biggest return. He's an all-star caliber 1b and a team needing a power bat could feasibly provide a sweet package of prospects to get him.

-He's getting older, and we'd be selling high to say the least

-There are options. While not necessarily good ones, you can start with Dunn. Perhaps getting him back to playing the field keeps him more engaged and he hits better. If not, Quentin/Viciedo could fit here as well.

 

Cons:

- He's our team leader, captain, and best player. Guys like this often are your franchise centerpieces and not trade material unless you're doing a massive rebuild

- He's relatively affordable for his production and is only signed through the next two years which gives us the option to pay him appropriately to finish his career here

- His replacements...

 

While I understand that trading your most productive player is bad business, could it make sense in our current situation? THink about it: we have Peavy on our books for this year, Rios for the next four and Dunn for the next three. Peavy aside, that's more than 25$ tied to two underacheiving players heading into Paulie's walk year and beyond. If we hold Paulie and play it out then our competiveness is tied to Rios and Dunn's production, while having no financial means to supplement what's already in place. We would be dependent on trades of Danks, CQ, etc. to provide reinforcements.

 

If indeed a "youth movement" is taking place, this perhaps we should explore trading our aging vets. Everyone's talking about trading CQ but the return is likely mediocre, one that is sure to bring out mass anger on this message board. Perhaps trading Paulie allows us to keep Danks and Quentin and move forward with the additional youth gained from a PK trade?

 

I'm not condoning this, just guaging the temperature of the Sox folk out there on how we could possibly position ourselves for success 2-4 years from now with our contract situations.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If Paul brings all of these great things to this team, which he does, why risk losing that by trying to solve a problem area that may or may not be resolved?