Chris Sale

[harfman77]

Ok so our current situations is this: we have a handful of star-level players who are controllable and cheap. We can either (a) get rid of them for different players who are controllable and cheap and hopefully will reach star-level or (b) leverage the advantage that those players give us and actually try to win a World Series.

 

If your goal is to win a WS, option B is the only option. Option A is a perpetual cycle of "maybe next year." My point is NOT that you can win by ONLY acquiring assets with surplus value. That's impossible. My point IS that trading Sale or Quintana at this point is a characteristic of option A.

 

There is a point where Sale and Quintana should be traded. That point is somewhere around 2018 in the instance that those players may no longer fit into the plan for the next five years because they are older/less effective/no longer in possession of several years of below-market control.

 

We are ONE year into this current cycle of Hahn building a perpetual winner. We must stay the course. There is no realistic package that we can get for Chris Sale that will bring us closer to the WS than keeping Chris Sale, and we have not given this core a chance to win. It is not time to tear it down.

 

Wrong, option B is how you end up like the Royals of the 90's, having a couple stars but not having enough depth to ever make a run. Thats the option where you get to see players like Chris Sale win championships in other cities while you remenice on his time as a White Sox and how he should have won Cy Youngs, but couldn't win enough games because of the talent around him.

 

In option "A" you move one of those players and supplement the other stars that remain with above replacement level players, if some reach star status that is icing on the cake. The teams in the WS this year are great examples, neither could be considered to have more than a couple of star players (especially with Cain out), but are solid enough all around that they make up for it. Obviously Sale and Abreu are off the table, but a Q trade could fill a lot of holes and provide enough upgrades that the Sox can contend next season and each of the years that they still have Sale under contract.

[witesoxfan]

Wrong, option B is how you end up like the Royals of the 90's, having a couple stars but not having enough depth to ever make a run. Thats the option where you get to see players like Chris Sale win championships in other cities while you remenice on his time as a White Sox and how he should have won Cy Youngs, but couldn't win enough games because of the talent around him.

 

In option "A" you move one of those players and supplement the other stars that remain with above replacement level players, if some reach star status that is icing on the cake. The teams in the WS this year are great examples, neither could be considered to have more than a couple of star players (especially with Cain out), but are solid enough all around that they make up for it. Obviously Sale and Abreu are off the table, but a Q trade could fill a lot of holes and provide enough upgrades that the Sox can contend next season and each of the years that they still have Sale under contract.

 

I don't think that's wrong at all. The Royals, unlike the White Sox, were unwilling to spend money to fill those other holes and also made some god awful trades during that time frame. I have no problem trading Chris Sale and/or Jose Quintana after the 2017 season if the Sox have shown no signs of competitiveness, because that leaves them with something like 2-3 years of control each, which is still incredibly valuable, and gives the Sox another 3 years with the current team. If that's not enough time, it was never going to happen.

 

However, if you fill the major holes in the lineup with either guys that are currently here or guys from outside the organization - the areas that could use upgrades from last year are C, 2B, LF, RF, DH, SP, SP, SP, and we'll just say bullpen in general - then the Sox are looking fine. That's easy to say, but you can also look at a few of those holes and pencil in upgrades - 2B is Semien, RF is Garcia, DH is LaRoche, one of the SP is Rodon, one of the relievers is Duke, one of the relievers may be Webb - and it's starting to look a lot better fairly quickly.

 

There's no rush to trade these guys off. Yeah, if someone makes an absurd offer for Quintana, you take it, but nobody's going to do that.

[Kyyle23]

Wrong, option B is how you end up like the Royals of the 90's, having a couple stars but not having enough depth to ever make a run. Thats the option where you get to see players like Chris Sale win championships in other cities while you remenice on his time as a White Sox and how he should have won Cy Youngs, but couldn't win enough games because of the talent around him.

 

In option "A" you move one of those players and supplement the other stars that remain with above replacement level players, if some reach star status that is icing on the cake. The teams in the WS this year are great examples, neither could be considered to have more than a couple of star players (especially with Cain out), but are solid enough all around that they make up for it. Obviously Sale and Abreu are off the table, but a Q trade could fill a lot of holes and provide enough upgrades that the Sox can contend next season and each of the years that they still have Sale under contract.

 

The Royals never made any attempt to keep any of their stars, and repeatedly traded them off until it became an absurd joke. They had no depth because they kept planning for everybody to be stars at the same time, and as wite said they never spent money to fill the holes.

[harfman77]

I don't think that's wrong at all. The Royals, unlike the White Sox, were unwilling to spend money to fill those other holes and also made some god awful trades during that time frame. I have no problem trading Chris Sale and/or Jose Quintana after the 2017 season if the Sox have shown no signs of competitiveness, because that leaves them with something like 2-3 years of control each, which is still incredibly valuable, and gives the Sox another 3 years with the current team. If that's not enough time, it was never going to happen.

 

However, if you fill the major holes in the lineup with either guys that are currently here or guys from outside the organization - the areas that could use upgrades from last year are C, 2B, LF, RF, DH, SP, SP, SP, and we'll just say bullpen in general - then the Sox are looking fine. That's easy to say, but you can also look at a few of those holes and pencil in upgrades - 2B is Semien, RF is Garcia, DH is LaRoche, one of the SP is Rodon, one of the relievers is Duke, one of the relievers may be Webb - and it's starting to look a lot better fairly quickly.

 

There's no rush to trade these guys off. Yeah, if someone makes an absurd offer for Quintana, you take it, but nobody's going to do that.

 

Thats exactly the point I am trying to make, though given the market, I am not sure that no one is going to give you a big offer for him. I am not trying to rush guys off as much as I am trying to expand the window of contention. Once Scherzer and Lester sign, Q is going to look very attractive to the teams that missed on adding them.

[TheFutureIsNear]

Ok so our current situations is this: we have a handful of star-level players who are controllable and cheap. We can either (a) get rid of them for different players who are controllable and cheap and hopefully will reach star-level or (b) leverage the advantage that those players give us and actually try to win a World Series.

 

If your goal is to win a WS, option B is the only option. Option A is a perpetual cycle of "maybe next year." My point is NOT that you can win by ONLY acquiring assets with surplus value. That's impossible. My point IS that trading Sale or Quintana at this point is a characteristic of option A.

 

There is a point where Sale and Quintana should be traded. That point is somewhere around 2018 in the instance that those players may no longer fit into the plan for the next five years because they are older/less effective/no longer in possession of several years of below-market control.

 

We are ONE year into this current cycle of Hahn building a perpetual winner. We must stay the course. There is no realistic package that we can get for Chris Sale that will bring us closer to the WS than keeping Chris Sale, and we have not given this core a chance to win. It is not time to tear it down.

 

My summary of your post after reading it...This is my opinion. It's fact. Deal with it.

 

Its not the same scenario, but the Cardinals let arguably the best hitter of the generation walk for nothing and have continued to have success since. Its perfect proof that there is no 1 player that is more valuable than good organizational depth. The Cardinals realized they could replace Pujols with 3-4 players at the same $ amount and actually be better off. If you wouldn't trade 1 SP for 3 everyday regular players + 2 very good young arms you're crazy. All there is to it. If you were arguing that you didn't like certain things about the individual prospects it would be 1 thing, but the idea that there is no package that could replace Chris Sale's value is ludicrous at best.

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Wrong, option B is how you end up like the Royals of the 90's, having a couple stars but not having enough depth to ever make a run. Thats the option where you get to see players like Chris Sale win championships in other cities while you remenice on his time as a White Sox and how he should have won Cy Youngs, but couldn't win enough games because of the talent around him.

 

In option "A" you move one of those players and supplement the other stars that remain with above replacement level players, if some reach star status that is icing on the cake. The teams in the WS this year are great examples, neither could be considered to have more than a couple of star players (especially with Cain out), but are solid enough all around that they make up for it. Obviously Sale and Abreu are off the table, but a Q trade could fill a lot of holes and provide enough upgrades that the Sox can contend next season and each of the years that they still have Sale under contract.

The Royals did exactly what you are proposing. They would trade their stars for prospects.

[LDF]

Thats exactly the point I am trying to make, though given the market, I am not sure that no one is going to give you a big offer for him. I am not trying to rush guys off as much as I am trying to expand the window of contention. Once Scherzer and Lester sign, Q is going to look very attractive to the teams that missed on adding them.

 

i really do think that with acquiring a A+ pitcher, with what ever plans

Hahn has cooking, the Sox of White can be a playoff bound and may

surprise many teams.

 

[harfman77]

The Royals did exactly what you are proposing. They would trade their stars for prospects.

 

No, they would hold them until they were near free agency and then trade them for prospects when their value was at its lowest, and end up with a bunch of A ball players, which is the exact opposite of what I am talking about. Selling at peak value now will allow the Sox to rake in multiple MLB ready prospects, taking a lot of the prospect uncertainty out of the equation.

[iamshack]

Ok so our current situations is this: we have a handful of star-level players who are controllable and cheap. We can either (a) get rid of them for different players who are controllable and cheap and hopefully will reach star-level or (b) leverage the advantage that those players give us and actually try to win a World Series.

 

If your goal is to win a WS, option B is the only option. Option A is a perpetual cycle of "maybe next year." My point is NOT that you can win by ONLY acquiring assets with surplus value. That's impossible. My point IS that trading Sale or Quintana at this point is a characteristic of option A.

 

There is a point where Sale and Quintana should be traded. That point is somewhere around 2018 in the instance that those players may no longer fit into the plan for the next five years because they are older/less effective/no longer in possession of several years of below-market control.

 

We are ONE year into this current cycle of Hahn building a perpetual winner. We must stay the course. There is no realistic package that we can get for Chris Sale that will bring us closer to the WS than keeping Chris Sale, and we have not given this core a chance to win. It is not time to tear it down.

You are oversimplifying this.

 

Ultimately, every player is an asset. The teams that put together the highest sum total of assets within their own particular financial constraints generally have the most sustained success.

 

If you can potentially increase the sum total of your assets by trading any one of your assets, regardless of it's surplus value, it's something one needs to explore.

 

I am not blindly advocating trading Chris Sale or one of the Jose's for a handful of prospects. If you've read my posts on the matter if trading Sale, I'd advocate for at least one high-ceiling talent who has seen some level of sustained success in the mlb, plus some high-ceiling pedigreed prospects, plus an additional veteran or two.

 

Now admittedly, I don't know that any team in baseball would accept those demands - and that's fine - but if one does, I am certainly going to explore it. I'm not going to refuse to trade him because he represents surplus value. This is not a zero sum game here.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

No, they would hold them until they were near free agency and then trade them for prospects when their value was at its lowest, and end up with a bunch of A ball players, which is the exact opposite of what I am talking about. Selling at peak value now will allow the Sox to rake in multiple MLB ready prospects, taking a lot of the prospect uncertainty out of the equation.

 

Yes, when they were near free agency, as in the year before they were set to leave. The White Sox would have to hold onto Sale and Quintana (and frankly Abreu and Eaton) through June of 2018 before they were faced with that exact scenario. That's 4 years from now.

 

Again, if they wait until the 2017-18 season, then they can trade Sale and the acquiring team would still have two years of control at the ridiculously cheap cost of $26 million.

[LDF]

 

there is a major point that many may not consider. that is a team

who has a great surplus of prospects and players with long contracts,

that team will be in a pickle like the Dodgers or the Phillies of several

yrs ago. can not move players due to the size of the contract and the

value of it. then the young talent will be wasting in the minors.

[Eminor3rd]

Wrong, option B is how you end up like the Royals of the 90's, having a couple stars but not having enough depth to ever make a run. Thats the option where you get to see players like Chris Sale win championships in other cities while you remenice on his time as a White Sox and how he should have won Cy Youngs, but couldn't win enough games because of the talent around him.

 

In option "A" you move one of those players and supplement the other stars that remain with above replacement level players, if some reach star status that is icing on the cake. The teams in the WS this year are great examples, neither could be considered to have more than a couple of star players (especially with Cain out), but are solid enough all around that they make up for it. Obviously Sale and Abreu are off the table, but a Q trade could fill a lot of holes and provide enough upgrades that the Sox can contend next season and each of the years that they still have Sale under contract.

 

This stuff below:

 

I don't think that's wrong at all. The Royals, unlike the White Sox, were unwilling to spend money to fill those other holes and also made some god awful trades during that time frame. I have no problem trading Chris Sale and/or Jose Quintana after the 2017 season if the Sox have shown no signs of competitiveness, because that leaves them with something like 2-3 years of control each, which is still incredibly valuable, and gives the Sox another 3 years with the current team. If that's not enough time, it was never going to happen.

 

However, if you fill the major holes in the lineup with either guys that are currently here or guys from outside the organization - the areas that could use upgrades from last year are C, 2B, LF, RF, DH, SP, SP, SP, and we'll just say bullpen in general - then the Sox are looking fine. That's easy to say, but you can also look at a few of those holes and pencil in upgrades - 2B is Semien, RF is Garcia, DH is LaRoche, one of the SP is Rodon, one of the relievers is Duke, one of the relievers may be Webb - and it's starting to look a lot better fairly quickly.

 

There's no rush to trade these guys off. Yeah, if someone makes an absurd offer for Quintana, you take it, but nobody's going to do that.

 

 

The Royals never made any attempt to keep any of their stars, and repeatedly traded them off until it became an absurd joke. They had no depth because they kept planning for everybody to be stars at the same time, and as wite said they never spent money to fill the holes.

 

Option B only fails if you refuse to add to your $40m payroll. I am not advocating that we should freeze the roster as it is for five years and see if it wins.

[Eminor3rd]

My summary of your post after reading it...This is my opinion. It's fact. Deal with it.

 

Its not the same scenario, but the Cardinals let arguably the best hitter of the generation walk for nothing and have continued to have success since. Its perfect proof that there is no 1 player that is more valuable than good organizational depth. The Cardinals realized they could replace Pujols with 3-4 players at the same $ amount and actually be better off. If you wouldn't trade 1 SP for 3 everyday regular players + 2 very good young arms you're crazy. All there is to it. If you were arguing that you didn't like certain things about the individual prospects it would be 1 thing, but the idea that there is no package that could replace Chris Sale's value is ludicrous at best.

 

The key differences are that (a) the Cardinals were already a great team, looking for the best way to stay great, and (b) Pujols was a pending free agent, not a 25 year old star signed for nothing for six year. If Sale was 30 and a free agent, this would be a completely different discussion. Likewise, if the Cardinals were rebuilding and Pujols was 25, they wouldn't have moved him.

[iamshack]

The key differences are that (a) the Cardinals were already a great team, looking for the best way to stay great, and (b) Pujols was a pending free agent, not a 25 year old star signed for nothing for six year. If Sale was 30 and a free agent, this would be a completely different discussion. Likewise, if the Cardinals were rebuilding and Pujols was 25, they wouldn't have moved him.

It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen?

[Dick Allen]

It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen?

If the White Sox were bagging the next 2 seasons, I would think they should think about trading him, but that is for injury purposes. Trading your better players for prospects, rarely works out player wise.Greinke to Milwaukee seems to have worked a bit. Colon to Montreal, but even then Phillips was a bust with Cleveland and Cliff Lee took a while to be good, and they wound up trading him for a bunch of garbage.

 

I do agree, if you are going to trade him, it better be for more than prospects. You better have something that is established in the major leagues coming back, or, if he doesn't wimd up on an operating table, it is a fireable offense.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

You are oversimplifying this.

 

Ultimately, every player is an asset. The teams that put together the highest sum total of assets within their own particular financial constraints generally have the most sustained success.

 

If you can potentially increase the sum total of your assets by trading any one of your assets, regardless of it's surplus value, it's something one needs to explore.

 

I am not blindly advocating trading Chris Sale or one of the Jose's for a handful of prospects. If you've read my posts on the matter if trading Sale, I'd advocate for at least one high-ceiling talent who has seen some level of sustained success in the mlb, plus some high-ceiling pedigreed prospects, plus an additional veteran or two.

 

Now admittedly, I don't know that any team in baseball would accept those demands - and that's fine - but if one does, I am certainly going to explore it. I'm not going to refuse to trade him because he represents surplus value. This is not a zero sum game here.

 

Right, but I'm saying there is no available asset that is equal or greater to Sale. The amount of of lottery ticket prospects you'd have to compile to be comfortable trading Sale is not a reasonable amount.

 

I get that everyone's saying "you have to be blown away," but you're NOT going to be. A team would have to make a dumb deal to be competitive, and they won't. So, in the universe we're in, there isn't a deal that exists where it makes to trade Sale.

 

I guess I just don't think it's fun to think about stuff that never has a chance to happen, and maybe I should stay out of these threads and let people have their fun.

[iamshack]

Right, but I'm saying there is no available asset that is equal or greater to Sale. The amount of of lottery ticket prospects you'd have to compile to be comfortable trading Sale is not a reasonable amount.

 

I get that everyone's saying "you have to be blown away," but you're NOT going to be. A team would have to make a dumb deal to be competitive, and they won't. So, in the universe we're in, there isn't a deal that exists where it makes to trade Sale.

 

I guess I just don't think it's fun to think about stuff that never has a chance to happen, and maybe I should stay out of these threads and let people have their fun.

There is a combination of assets that is though.

 

You may be right, it doesn't matter regardless, since neither of us makes the decisions.

[Eminor3rd]

There is a combination of assets that is though.

 

You may be right, it doesn't matter regardless, since neither of us makes the decisions.

 

Which calls into question all the time we spend on this board in the first place

[TheFutureIsNear]

It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen?

 

To me they(above posters) are way more worried about intangible things like "value" of a contract rather than the actual tangible things like talent on the field. But you're card analogy works as well.

Edited November 25, 2014 by TheFutureIsNear

[Eminor3rd]

It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen?

 

You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand.

 

Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000.

 

Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway.

[Eminor3rd]

To me they(above posters) are way more worried about intangible things like "value" of a contract rather than the actual tangible things like talent on the field. But you're card analogy works as well.

 

This is apple and oranges. The "value" of the contract is only "valuable" if it allows you to acquire more talent to make a winning team. It seems like a lot of people are assuming we're defending the idea that Sale should be enough to win a WS on his own because he has surplus financial value on his contract.

 

The argument is that we're better off using the advantage he gives us to build around him rather than trading him and hoping we luck into finding a guy like him again.

[TheFutureIsNear]

You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand.

 

Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000.

 

Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway.

 

You're lottery analogy is WAY overstating how difficult it is to analyze prospects in today's day and age. Every prospect that has been mentioned in this thread is in their early 20's with sustained success in the high levels of the minors. If we were to get 6 prospects back are they all going to reach their potential? Of course not, that would be naive to think so. But you're lottery analogy is also extreme in the opposite direction. Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures.

 

[iamshack]

You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand.

 

Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000.

 

Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway.

But it isn't random; it's not like we have never seen the players. It isn't like we don't select the players. It isn't like we don't ultimately get to choose whether to accept or deny. I understand there is uncertainty in the finished product you will receive, and that will drive the offers and the process.

[Eminor3rd]

You're lottery analogy is WAY overstating how difficult it is to analyze prospects in today's day and age. Every prospect that has been mentioned in this thread is in their early 20's with sustained success in the high levels of the minors. If we were to get 6 prospects back are they all going to reach their potential? Of course not, that would be naive to think so. But you're lottery analogy is also extreme in the opposite direction. Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures.

 

But it isn't random; it's not like we have never seen the players. It isn't like we don't select the players. It isn't like we don't ultimately get to choose whether to accept or deny. I understand there is uncertainty in the finished product you will receive, and that will drive the offers and the process.

 

I think you're both underestimating the bust rate. Further, even among the ones that don't bust, few end up reaching their ceilings.

 

This estimate is way too rosy: "Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures."

 

50% of notable prospects turn into what you hoped? I think it's more like 20%

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Bogaerts

Betts

Owens

Swihart

De La Rosa

Eduardo Rodriguez

 

 

You forgot Cecchini, Ranuado, and Fenway Park.

I would let them keep Fenway Park if they agreed to DFA David Ortiz in the middle of his first AB of their (presumably) nationally televised home opener. Outright him to Pawtucket if possible. Also, no more Sweet Caroline, ever.