Jump to content

Rosenthal: Sox should market Sale


Jake

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:57 PM)
It's definitely risky. I'd rather sign good free agents to go with our own homegrown guys. But great free agents, not guys like Keppinger. I wish the White Sox had the Oakland A's ability to compete despite not being big spenders. Our talent evaluators must suck compared to teams like the A's and Rays.

 

 

The A's have gone through a LONG period of rebuilding/reloading to get to this point...look at how many years and losses between playoff appearances.

 

Now if you're talking the Rays or Cardinals or Rangers or Giants, those are the models to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:59 PM)
And if we were starting with nothing, or if we were starting with equal resources on each side, yes, I would probably seek out pitching first.

 

 

Unless that pitcher had mechanical flaws.....like Prior/Wood/Strasburg/Peavy, etc. Some believe Sale would go the same direction.

 

For example, look at Verlander and Cain, two of the best pitcher of the last decade, both seemingly breaking down from overuse. Lincecum, from throwing too many sliders/off-speed pitches. Price has struggled for much of this season. Elite pitchers break down MUCH more frequently than do elite hitters. For example, despite their size, look at how durable Fielder and Cabrera have been. (The one counterexample seems to be Pablo Sandoval, but he's dangerously overweight or has an eating disorder situation).

 

Now if it's 2006 Justin Verlander, that's another matter altogether.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:57 PM)
I'm talking a 1:1 deal, like Stanton/Sale.

 

Yes, a deep/quality rotation is always a must, but we're discussing young superstar for superstar trades...

 

Sale/Harvey/Kershaw vs. Posey/Trout/Harper/Machado/Puig/Stanton/Cabrera, etc.

 

Ehhh, maybe. Even if starters only go once every five games, if you can essentially pencil in 25 wins from their starts, you are a quarter of the way there. That's given that you have a capable offense too.

 

It's not a black and white area here, there's plenty of gray when it would come to a hypothetical trade like that.

 

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:57 PM)
It's definitely risky. I'd rather sign good free agents to go with our own homegrown guys. But great free agents, not guys like Keppinger. I wish the White Sox had the Oakland A's ability to compete despite not being big spenders. Our talent evaluators must suck compared to teams like the A's and Rays.

 

Building a team through free agency is one of the most expensive and cost inefficient ways to build a team. You don't build your team through free agency, you supplement it. Teams that go into free agency looking for an ace or a cleanup hitter usually have to shell out 5-9 years at extreme costs ($20+ million a year) and they watch those players decline rather quickly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:05 PM)
Ehhh, maybe. Even if starters only go once every five games, if you can essentially pencil in 25 wins from their starts, you are a quarter of the way there. That's given that you have a capable offense too.

 

It's not a black and white area here, there's plenty of gray when it would come to a hypothetical trade like that.

 

 

 

Building a team through free agency is one of the most expensive and cost inefficient ways to build a team. You don't build your team through free agency, you supplement it. Teams that go into free agency looking for an ace or a cleanup hitter usually have to shell out 5-9 years at extreme costs ($20+ million a year) and they watch those players decline rather quickly.

 

 

Unless you're the Dodgers, who produced Ethier, Loney, Kemp, AJ Ellis, Kershaw, etc. But paid through the teeth for Crawford, Puig, Hanley Ramirez, Ryu, Zach Greinke and Adrian Gonzalez. That's six HUGE acquisitions that most organizations can only do once or twice a decade. Heck, they spent a lot of money on Juan Uribe.

 

The Blue Jays tried this approach to limited success because of the regressions from J. Johnson, Buehrle and RA Dickey.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stanton/Eovaldi/Romero

 

They gain another ace to go with Fernandez for the future...We get Stanton who has the potential to hit MANY MANY MANY bombs at the Cell...Eovaldi who has ELECTRIC stuff & I have been very impressed with him from I have watched this season....Avery Romero gives us our possible SS of the future who was a 3rd round pick in 2012.

 

May have to throw in Jacob Turner as well Miami.... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contract with Sale is what gets you even more talent, although teams would probably site injury concerns to keep the offers lower. Assuming Sale remains an ace for the entire length of his contract, a comparable top hitter is going to have to be paid significantly more money.

 

I wouldn't trade him unless it was a no-brainer, but I would make sure I gave teams the opportunity to make me a no-brainer offer.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:55 PM)
I'm not quite sure that's the belief of every scout. I think there's a whole lot of people who think you build from pitching first.

 

To me, both philosophies are wrong. You want to develop the things that you are good at developing, and trade that for the other things you need. #Barves and Rays build pitching, trade it for hitting. We're probably the same way. But all this Hawk crap about hitting or pitching or defense being "most important is BS -- a run created is a run saved and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 03:30 PM)
The contract with Sale is what gets you even more talent, although teams would probably site injury concerns to keep the offers lower. Assuming Sale remains an ace for the entire length of his contract, a comparable top hitter is going to have to be paid significantly more money.

 

I wouldn't trade him unless it was a no-brainer, but I would make sure I gave teams the opportunity to make me a no-brainer offer.

 

This.

 

Out of the tier of possible young STUD hitters...Stanton has to be the most obtainable you would think?

 

Stanton/Eovaldi combo is a good start to a good package for Sale.

 

Eovaldi has top of the rotation type stuff, & I have seen him live in the 98-99 mph range at times this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:31 PM)
To me, both philosophies are wrong. You want to develop the things that you are good at developing, and trade that for the other things you need. #Barves and Rays build pitching, trade it for hitting. We're probably the same way. But all this Hawk crap about hitting or pitching or defense being "most important is BS -- a run created is a run saved and vice versa.

One pitcher and some good defense can shut down the opposition. One hot hitter in your line up, and you still probably lose. The Sox have one or two guys hot at a time often this season.

Defense (which pitching is a part ) has always trumped offense in sports. I do think that has changed in the NFL.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Noonskadoodle @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:36 PM)
This.

 

Out of the tier of possible young STUD hitters...Stanton has to be the most obtainable you would think?

 

Stanton/Eovaldi combo is a good start to a good package for Sale.

 

Eovaldi has top of the rotation type stuff, & I have seen him live in the 98-99 mph range at times this season.

 

No, not for Sale. If they actually trade him, they are trading him for prospects. If they hypothetically traded him for Sale, it would be Sale for Stanton straight up. You are not getting Eovaldi too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:38 PM)
No, not for Sale. If they actually trade him, they are trading him for prospects. If they hypothetically traded him for Sale, it would be Sale for Stanton straight up. You are not getting Eovaldi too.

I don't know maybe not Eovaldi, but more than Stanton I would think. They would have a cost controlled guy for quite some time vs. a guy they would either have to trade for prospects or pay probably close to double what they would be on the hook for Sale, if not more, for the duration of the contract if they could keep him at all. And they could use the marketing of having Sale in their rotation instead of prospects. It would serve a couple of purposes for Loria.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 03:38 PM)
No, not for Sale. If they actually trade him, they are trading him for prospects. If they hypothetically traded him for Sale, it would be Sale for Stanton straight up. You are not getting Eovaldi too.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

Jacob Turner has been pitching just as well as Eovaldi, & he could be their future 3.

 

If you could pair Sale with the young Jose Fernandez who is having an unbelievable rookie year, & have them as your future 1-2 I'm not so sure they would let Eovaldi stand in the way of that.

 

Their top 2 prospects are OFs who are fairly close to getting a shot with them...Marcel Ozuna has been very good this year...Stanton may be a little more attainable than you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:38 PM)
No, not for Sale. If they actually trade him, they are trading him for prospects. If they hypothetically traded him for Sale, it would be Sale for Stanton straight up. You are not getting Eovaldi too.

I would be upset with that trade then. Sale has not only shown elite potential, but he has produced elite results.

 

Not sure the same could be said for Stanton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:37 PM)
One pitcher and some good defense can shut down the opposition. One hot hitter in your line up, and you still probably lose. The Sox have one or two guys hot at a time often this season.

Defense (which pitching is a part ) has always trumped offense in sports. I do think that has changed in the NFL.

The only reason it has changed in the NFL is the rule changes to specifically make the offense more important.

 

In baseball the same thing happend when they lowered the mound. But pitching and defense is still the most important because you have one person who can control the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:52 PM)
The only reason it has changed in the NFL is the rule changes to specifically make the offense more important.

 

In baseball the same thing happend when they lowered the mound. But pitching and defense is still the most important because you have one person who can control the game.

This is countered by the fact that a SP can only pitch once every 4 or 5 games. It isn't like a hockey goalie where he can play every game, for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What value do the Marlins have for Chris Sale? This is an organization that, in the last 10 years, has traded for and developed young pitchers like Beckett, Burnett, Willis, Johnson, Sanchez, Nolasco, Dempster, and, sure, Pavano. You can probably find others too. They have a good pitching staff now too that will only get better as players get older and others develop.

 

Now consider that the Marlins are so bad offensively that Juan Pierre is their leadoff hitter and Placido Polanco is getting significant playing time. They have developed two of the best hitters in the game - Stanton and Cabrera - and they have developed good hitters, in the past too. They don't have a lot right now and it's easily the worst offense in the NL.

 

So, why would the Marlins trade Stanton AND Eovaldi for Sale?

 

I don't think it would be a good trade for either team. I wouldn't trade Sale for Stanton, and the Marlins wouldn't trade Stanton for Sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only hypothetical trade I can think of that would make sense in that instance is Sale and Viciedo (or some young hitter) for Stanton and Eovaldi. The Marlins can then atleast hang their hat on bringing in another high upside bat to replace Stanton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:06 PM)
Can't deal Sale because the overwhelming chances that he'll still be the best player in any trade 5 years from now.

That isn't any of our concern at this stage of the game.

 

If we get 3 guys that become all-stars, does it really matter if Chris still ends up being the best player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 03:08 PM)
That isn't any of our concern at this stage of the game.

 

If we get 3 guys that become all-stars, does it really matter if Chris still ends up being the best player?

 

What are the chances that one organization has three all-stars in their farm system? That's why you stick with Sale for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Noonskadoodle @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:36 PM)
This.

 

Out of the tier of possible young STUD hitters...Stanton has to be the most obtainable you would think?

 

Stanton/Eovaldi combo is a good start to a good package for Sale.

 

Eovaldi has top of the rotation type stuff, & I have seen him live in the 98-99 mph range at times this season.

 

 

Here's a big problem.

 

Loria doesn't seem to care about anything but money. Surely, their counterargument is that Mike Stanton means a lot more to their attendance/PR/marketing than Chris Sale could possibly mean...

 

The next problem is how likely is JR to give out a Prince Fielder-ish contract to Stanton at the end of his ARB eligibility???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:37 PM)
One pitcher and some good defense can shut down the opposition. One hot hitter in your line up, and you still probably lose. The Sox have one or two guys hot at a time often this season.

Defense (which pitching is a part ) has always trumped offense in sports. I do think that has changed in the NFL.

 

I still disagree with the premise. Our record this year is a testament to what happens when you have good pitching and no offense. Yes, the bad defense is an additional factor, but the majority of our games have still been very low scoring games -- you hear them quote all the time the high percentage of games decided by less than 3 runs.

 

As for a hot hitter versus a hot pitcher: a 3.50 ERA is good, a 4.50 ERA is mediocre. That's a difference of 1 run per nine innings, and it includes the contributions of the defense (in terms of range, not errors). A single hot hitter can always hit at least solo homerun, which is a difference of one run over nine innings. One hot pitcher and some good defense CAN shut down the opposition -- once in five games. Unless you're Chris Sale, and you have a below .500 record despite a sub-3 ERA.

 

Outscoring your opponent has equal parts to do with adding and preventing runs, the ratio is 1:1.

Edited by Eminor3rd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...