Chris Sale

[GreenSox]

The White Sox, from one angle, are in a great position with 2 superstars (teams better than us don't have that) plus 2 really good young players in Eaton and Q. What the Sox lack are solid league average or above players at 3B, OF, 2B, 2 starter spots, and on the bench. We are the inverse of the Royals...they are solid across the board, with no stars.

Why are the Sox so poor at so many positions?

Simple - lousy farm system. Poor drafting and ineffective development. There's not an outfielder in the system that you could even contemplate competing for real playing time this year. There are no farm pitchers, YET, who can be anything more than 5th starters next year.

Solution? Keep building the farm - don't trade it.

Trade Alexei - he's the guy the Sox need to trade. We don't have a 2 year window - we have 5 year window that is just beginning. He won't be here in the prime of it. Move him for young players, prospects or emerging young hitters or pitchers. That 1 sure contender (Dodgers) and 1 putative contender (Mets) are in dire need, should maximize our return.

Otherwise, sign 1 starter, and get a LF (non-platoon). Guys like Gillaspie could be a useful piece to the team, especially if he can play OF. He can spell at various positions, play some DH, etc.

Trading Sale shifts the window forward at least 3 years, if not more.

[iamshack]

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%

Let me ask you this...

 

What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale?

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

I don't think any of this is true. I worry more about the fact that the White Sox have 5 years of control of Abreu, Sale, and Quintana and that trading them sets that back. I would imagine it's close to 10-20% of prospects meet their potential, another 20-30% find some utility at the MLB level, and 50-60% bust. I mean, here's the BA top 20 from 2010:

 

1. Jason Heyward

2. Stephen Strasburg

3. Mike Stanton

4. Jesus Montero

5. Brian Matusz

6. Desmond Jennings

7. Buster Posey

8. Pedro Alvarez

9. Neftali Feliz

10. Carlos Santana

11. Dustin Ackley

12. Alcides Escobar

13. Justin Smoak

14. Madison Bumgarner

15. Dominic Brown

16. Starlin Castro

17. Martin Perez

18. Jeremy Hellickson

19. Aaron Hicks

20. Logan Morrison

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prosp...010/269546.html

 

Those were the 20 best minor league players in the game going into the 2010 season. How many of those guys are stars 5 years later? How many are regulars? How many have turned into utility players or relievers? How many have busted?

 

The Sox wouldn't even be getting 4 or 5 of these guys. They'd be getting 4 or 5 or 6 of the top 100 or top 150 or top 200. The odds that they get good players out of HALF of those players is incredibly small.

 

In the event the Sox do not trade Chris Sale (which is likely), they are betting that Chris Sale, who is already a 5-6 WAR Cy Young candidate every year, is going to provide more value along with the other players the Sox would acquire otherwise versus Sale's replacement, the package of players they brought in for Sale and that difference between those players. I'm not going to dispute that Xavier Bogaerts is a more valuable player than Alexei Ramirez overall, but I am going to say that the White Sox with Chris Sale and Alexei Ramirez is better than the White Sox without those guys. Really, how are the Sox going to replace that value long-term? They have to hope that Owens or De La Rosa or Webster or whatever pitcher(s) they got could replicate that, and it's very likely one or two of those guys end up as bullpen pitchers.

 

Following the 2017 season, it makes a lot more sense to explore trade options for those guys. Right now it makes very, very little sense.

 

You can keep searching and looking up top 100 lists from years gone by, but there are a ton of guys who had all kinds of promise that busted.

[iamshack]

I don't think any of this is true. I worry more about the fact that the White Sox have 5 years of control of Abreu, Sale, and Quintana and that trading them sets that back. I would imagine it's close to 10-20% of prospects meet their potential, another 20-30% find some utility at the MLB level, and 50-60% bust. I mean, here's the BA top 20 from 2010:

 

1. Jason Heyward

2. Stephen Strasburg

3. Mike Stanton

4. Jesus Montero

5. Brian Matusz

6. Desmond Jennings

7. Buster Posey

8. Pedro Alvarez

9. Neftali Feliz

10. Carlos Santana

11. Dustin Ackley

12. Alcides Escobar

13. Justin Smoak

14. Madison Bumgarner

15. Dominic Brown

16. Starlin Castro

17. Martin Perez

18. Jeremy Hellickson

19. Aaron Hicks

20. Logan Morrison

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prosp...010/269546.html

 

Those were the 20 best minor league players in the game going into the 2010 season. How many of those guys are stars 5 years later? How many are regulars? How many have turned into utility players or relievers? How many have busted?

 

The Sox wouldn't even be getting 4 or 5 of these guys. They'd be getting 4 or 5 or 6 of the top 100 or top 150 or top 200. The odds that they get good players out of HALF of those players is incredibly small.

 

In the event the Sox do not trade Chris Sale (which is likely), they are betting that Chris Sale, who is already a 5-6 WAR Cy Young candidate every year, is going to provide more value along with the other players the Sox would acquire otherwise versus Sale's replacement, the package of players they brought in for Sale and that difference between those players. I'm not going to dispute that Xavier Bogaerts is a more valuable player than Alexei Ramirez overall, but I am going to say that the White Sox with Chris Sale and Alexei Ramirez is better than the White Sox without those guys. Really, how are the Sox going to replace that value long-term? They have to hope that Owens or De La Rosa or Webster or whatever pitcher(s) they got could replicate that, and it's very likely one or two of those guys end up as bullpen pitchers.

 

Following the 2017 season, it makes a lot more sense to explore trade options for those guys. Right now it makes very, very little sense.

 

You can keep searching and looking up top 100 lists from years gone by, but there are a ton of guys who had all kinds of promise that busted.

Understood. There are maybe 1-3 teams that could get in the room. Cubs, Twins, Houston?

 

What if you could get Stanton, Strasburg, Posey, or the like, plus a semi-established high-ceiling player, plus another pedigreed prospect, and a vet or two?

 

You wouldn't explore that?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

The value of the assets is 100% meaningless. It is the performance of the players that matters.

[witesoxfan]

Understood. There are maybe 1-3 teams that could get in the room. Cubs, Twins, Houston?

 

What if you could get Stanton, Strasburg, Posey, or the like, plus a semi-established high-ceiling player, plus another pedigreed prospect, and a vet or two?

 

You wouldn't explore that?

 

Right now, no, because you don't know that Stanton is going to be a guy that hits 500 foot blasts at this point just as we don't know that Justin Smoak is completely bust. If we knew, those teams wouldn't trade those guys and a guy like Chris Sale goes 1st overall in his draft.

 

If we had the foresight to actually see that those guys are doing that, then yes, you would, but we simply don't have that ability. I think that's oversimplifying, but really, the Twins have a couple of top 5 or top 10 prospects in the entire game between Sano and Buxton, but Sano was already showing cracks in his armor upon being promoted to AA with a very high K rate (even at an incredibly young age) and then he didn't play this year while Buxton, when he wasn't dealing with injuries, really, really struggled this year.

 

I would say Bryant would have to be apart of a trade for Sale, but the Cubs probably feel he is capable of providing up to 24-30 WAR over the next 6 years (he's projected for 4 WAR based on his minor league numbers as a rookie this season). And even then, there's no such thing as a guarantee from a prospect. That's why it gets so impossibly tricky.

 

If, gun to my head, I had to make a deal with the Cubs right now, I'd probably ask for Castro, Soler/Bryant, CJ Edwards, and probably 2-3 other riskier prospects (Ramirez, Underwood, Baez maybe?) and there's no reason for the Cubs to make that deal. That's why no deal would happen. I could be swayed one way or another, but it's never going to get close enough to make it worthwhile discussion.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

And we aren't going to find a better performing player than Chris Sale.

[southsider2k5]

Let me ask you this...

 

What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale?

 

None. I would want at least one established star hitter as a starting point.

[Eminor3rd]

Let me ask you this...

 

What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale?

 

At absolute minimum, Bryant + Soler + Russell + Edwards. That's the point where, if it happened, I can squint and see it as good, but I'd still be uneasy. And that's already completely unrealistic from the Cubs' perspective -- they would never even consider it. And no other system in the league can touch that offer.

 

I mean, if we make that trade, we're basically making a play to become what the Cubs are now, except we're in a worse position.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[oldsox]

The White Sox, from one angle, are in a great position with 2 superstars (teams better than us don't have that) plus 2 really good young players in Eaton and Q. What the Sox lack are solid league average or above players at 3B, OF, 2B, 2 starter spots, and on the bench. We are the inverse of the Royals...they are solid across the board, with no stars.

Why are the Sox so poor at so many positions?

Simple - lousy farm system. Poor drafting and ineffective development. There's not an outfielder in the system that you could even contemplate competing for real playing time this year. There are no farm pitchers, YET, who can be anything more than 5th starters next year.

Solution? Keep building the farm - don't trade it.

Trade Alexei - he's the guy the Sox need to trade. We don't have a 2 year window - we have 5 year window that is just beginning. He won't be here in the prime of it. Move him for young players, prospects or emerging young hitters or pitchers. That 1 sure contender (Dodgers) and 1 putative contender (Mets) are in dire need, should maximize our return.

Otherwise, sign 1 starter, and get a LF (non-platoon). Guys like Gillaspie could be a useful piece to the team, especially if he can play OF. He can spell at various positions, play some DH, etc.

Trading Sale shifts the window forward at least 3 years, if not more.

I can see trading him, but it should be for someone ready to step into the lineup right away.

Putative.......good word.

[Boopa1219]

Let me ask you this...

 

What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale?

 

Bryant, Russel/Almora, McKinney and a Dylan Cease.

 

 

I have a question for everyone, when do you think the Sox window for contention opens? I would say 2016.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Joshua Strong

[witesoxfan]

Bryant, Russel/Almora, McKinney and a Dylan Cease.

 

 

I have a question for everyone, when do you think the Sox window for contention opens? I would say 2016.

 

What is your definition of contention? I think 83 or 85 wins and within 3-5 games of the top all year is contending, and I think that happens this year. If you mean favorite in the division, that's impossible to say but 2016 is the earliest.

[LDF]

Let me ask you this...

 

What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale?

 

if they would move to Indianapolis / 1-prospect

Edited November 25, 2014 by LDF

[LDF]

The White Sox, from one angle, are in a great position with 2 superstars (teams better than us don't have that) plus 2 really good young players in Eaton and Q. What the Sox lack are solid league average or above players at 3B, OF, 2B, 2 starter spots, and on the bench. We are the inverse of the Royals...they are solid across the board, with no stars.

Why are the Sox so poor at so many positions?

Simple - lousy farm system. Poor drafting and ineffective development. There's not an outfielder in the system that you could even contemplate competing for real playing time this year. There are no farm pitchers, YET, who can be anything more than 5th starters next year.

Solution? Keep building the farm - don't trade it.

Trade Alexei - he's the guy the Sox need to trade. We don't have a 2 year window - we have

5 year window that is just beginning. He won't be here in the prime of it. Move him for young players,

prospects or emerging young hitters or pitchers. That 1 sure contender (Dodgers) and 1 putative contender (Mets) are in dire need, should maximize our return.

Otherwise, sign 1 starter, and get a LF (non-platoon). Guys like Gillaspie could be a useful piece to the team, especially if he can play OF. He can spell at various positions, play some DH, etc.

Trading Sale shifts the window forward at least 3 years, if not more.

 

the problem with the Mets is they are overvaluing their players / prospects.

[iamshack]

The value of the assets is 100% meaningless. It is the performance of the players that matters.

Well obviously the value of an asset is tied to the asset's performance.

[iamshack]

None. I would want at least one established star hitter as a starting point.

Well that is why I said pieces and not prospects. But if you don't like any of their hitters because of the fit, that is understandable I guess.

[iamshack]

Right now, no, because you don't know that Stanton is going to be a guy that hits 500 foot blasts at this point just as we don't know that Justin Smoak is completely bust. If we knew, those teams wouldn't trade those guys and a guy like Chris Sale goes 1st overall in his draft.

 

If we had the foresight to actually see that those guys are doing that, then yes, you would, but we simply don't have that ability. I think that's oversimplifying, but really, the Twins have a couple of top 5 or top 10 prospects in the entire game between Sano and Buxton, but Sano was already showing cracks in his armor upon being promoted to AA with a very high K rate (even at an incredibly young age) and then he didn't play this year while Buxton, when he wasn't dealing with injuries, really, really struggled this year.

 

I would say Bryant would have to be apart of a trade for Sale, but the Cubs probably feel he is capable of providing up to 24-30 WAR over the next 6 years (he's projected for 4 WAR based on his minor league numbers as a rookie this season). And even then, there's no such thing as a guarantee from a prospect. That's why it gets so impossibly tricky.

 

If, gun to my head, I had to make a deal with the Cubs right now, I'd probably ask for Castro, Soler/Bryant, CJ Edwards, and probably 2-3 other riskier prospects (Ramirez, Underwood, Baez maybe?) and there's no reason for the Cubs to make that deal. That's why no deal would happen. I could be swayed one way or another, but it's never going to get close enough to make it worthwhile discussion.

But there were certainly some guys in there that were more likely to succeed than others...for instance, Posey and Strasburg, there was very, very little doubt about whether those guys were going to turn into very good mlb players. Of course, you make a good point about looking back with hindsight, but let's not pretend that every prospect comes with the same questions, because they do not. Some seem to be infinitely more projectable than others.

[iamshack]

At absolute minimum, Bryant + Soler + Russell + Edwards. That's the point where, if it happened, I can squint and see it as good, but I'd still be uneasy. And that's already completely unrealistic from the Cubs' perspective -- they would never even consider it. And no other system in the league can touch that offer.

 

I mean, if we make that trade, we're basically making a play to become what the Cubs are now, except we're in a worse position.

See, you keep downplaying prospects, and then selecting only prospects.

 

Why not include someone with a little more certainty in terms of performance?

[Balta1701]

See, you keep downplaying prospects, and then selecting only prospects.

 

Why not include someone with a little more certainty in terms of performance?

Do the Cubs have anyone who meets that standard other than Rizzo?

[Eminor3rd]

See, you keep downplaying prospects, and then selecting only prospects.

 

Why not include someone with a little more certainty in terms of performance?

 

Like who? They don't have anyone except Rizzo, and that's the last place on the diamond we need help.

 

Notice I selected nothing but advanced, upper minors guys that have maintained their upside. And, individually, they all have probably less than a 50/50 shot to reach their ceilings. Collectively, you feel like one probably will.

 

Also, please don't tag me for "downplaying prospects," as I am usually on the other side of that debate. If I'm "downplaying" them, it's only when I'm comparison with what is literally the most ideal possible outcome for them, which is when they turn into superstars the year after signing long-term extensions that pay them like bench players.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm not trying to make anyone angry. Lillian informed me that I'm acting like an asshole today and she's probably right and I'm sorry. I can't seem to get the "edge" out of my posts today for some reason.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[iamshack]

Do the Cubs have anyone who meets that standard other than Rizzo?

Castro.

[GreenSox]

the problem with the Mets is they are overvaluing their players / prospects.

I'm sure they are. Mets really don't have anything to offer that wouldn't be completely laughed at except prospects other than that one injured so-so pitcher.

The Dodgers can at least have spare parts outfielders that they can throw out there and try to wait out Hahn and hope he has a brain fog at some point. I hope the Sox take care of the OF fairly quickly - that might improve their bargaining position with the dodgers.

[iamshack]

Like who? They don't have anyone except Rizzo, and that's the last place on the diamond we need help.

 

Notice I selected nothing but advanced, upper minors guys that have maintained their upside. And, individually, they all have probably less than a 50/50 shot to reach their ceilings. Collectively, you feel like one probably will.

 

Also, please don't tag me for "downplaying prospects," as I am usually on the other side of that debate. If I'm "downplaying" them, it's only when I'm comparison with what is literally the most ideal possible outcome for them, which is when they turn into superstars the year after signing long-term extension that pay them like bench players.

I'm talking about for purposes of this conversation. I am not "tagging" you for anything.

 

Castro has been a relatively valuable player for most of his career. He certainly provides a little bit of certainty in regards to what you are getting.

 

It would be difficult to hang up the phone if names like Castro, Bryant, and Soler were mentioned.

[Balta1701]

Castro.

With his performance the last couple years, he's a decent player but he's sitting on a long term guaranteed contract and doesn't sell me very hard on being a centerpiece.

[iamshack]

With his performance the last couple years, he's a decent player but he's sitting on a long term guaranteed contract and doesn't sell me very hard on being a centerpiece.

He's been a 3 war player basically 3 times already at age 24...he's exactly the type of player that should be one of the centerpieces.