Chris Sale

[LDF]

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.

 

Mets, Coln>> been there, done that, no thanks.

Jon Niese >> bad shoulder, surgery ??

 

for Alexei

 

NY Mets >> Delusional.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

 

He's got value as a part of a total package, but he's not a guy that "gets me listening" on Chris Sale.

[iamshack]

He's got value as a part of a total package, but he's not a guy that "gets me listening" on Chris Sale.

No, that is obviously Bryant.

 

But you've got to have SOMETHING that at the very least, you know you are going to get out of this if the worst case happens, all the prospects bust.

[Eminor3rd]

No, that is obviously Bryant.

 

But you've got to have SOMETHING that at the very least, you know you are going to get out of this if the worst case happens, all the prospects bust.

 

I can see a legitimate argument that you'd prefer Castro to Russell. But it's still a minimum of Bryant, Soler, Castro, and another guy that's a tier down. And the Cubs would just never do that. I feel like the Cubs would try to pass off Baez as a top tier guy, then include Alcantara and some lower dudes. After intense negotiations, their best offer might be ONE of Bryant/Soler + a couple third tier guys. Or maybe one of Bryant/Soler + Castro to clear their SS logjam.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[bigruss]

I can see a legitimate argument that you'd prefer Castro to Russell. But it's still a minimum of Bryant, Soler, Castro, and another guy that's a tier down. And the Cubs would just never do that. I feel like the Cubs would try to pass off Baez as a top tier guy, then include Alcantara and some lower dudes. After intense negotiations, their best offer might be ONE of Bryant/Soler + a couple third tier guys. Or maybe one of Bryant/Soler + Castro to clear their SS logjam.

I think the Cubs would take the bolded in a heartbeat, Sale is that valuable at his age/performance/contract.

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

With Strasburg, there was little doubt he would be successful so long as he remained healthy. He had TJS not long after finishing his first year up and it'll probably be a miracle if he never has it again.

 

Of course not every prospect comes with the same questions, but look at a guy like Justin Smoak or Gordon Beckham - those guys were thought to be surefire multiple all-stars. I mean, we saw with Beckham after he came up that he looked like a future monster, and he fell into some massive struggles and never recovered. That can always happen.

 

The general point being that there are can't miss prospects that do miss. And there have been a lot of guys who have had absolutely phenomenal careers who were never ranked in the top 100 prospects. It's hard to make a trade like that when you're not forced to, you can see yourself competing while he's under contract, he's going to be a big reason why you're competing, and you can't really see yourself competing without him. Sure, you could conceivably be a competitive team due to trading Chris Sale, but it's far, far likelier that you will be competitive with Chris Sale sooner than without.

 

[bigruss]

Shack, I understand your perspective, I really do, but no matter what trade offers are out there they most likely wouldn't be in the Sox favor. The Sox would be taking the majority of risk, or if we went after a variety of major league players we would be sacrificing talent. If you're trading Sale you are trading him for a proven, cost-controlled, young MLB star. How many of those are out there, and how many are as cheap as Sale?

 

I would listen to Trout +, the plus for the difference in their contracts. That's how valuable Sale is.

[iamshack]

I can see a legitimate argument that you'd prefer Castro to Russell. But it's still a minimum of Bryant, Soler, Castro, and another guy that's a tier down. And the Cubs would just never do that. I feel like the Cubs would try to pass off Baez as a top tier guy, then include Alcantara and some lower dudes. After intense negotiations, their best offer might be ONE of Bryant/Soler + a couple third tier guys. Or maybe one of Bryant/Soler + Castro to clear their SS logjam.

I'm sure the Cubs would probably rather keep Russell, but who knows.

 

No one is saying that the deal exists out there, just that we shouldn't close our minds to it simply because we don't think anyone is willing to pay the price.

[bigruss]

I'm sure the Cubs would probably rather keep Russell, but who knows.

 

No one is saying that the deal exists out there, just that we shouldn't close our minds to it simply because we don't think anyone is willing to pay the price.

If someone wants to pay the price I have in mind then they can feel free to offer it, I just don't think any team will believe it's a value trade back to them.

[iamshack]

Shack, I understand your perspective, I really do, but no matter what trade offers are out there they most likely wouldn't be in the Sox favor. The Sox would be taking the majority of risk, or if we went after a variety of major league players we would be sacrificing talent. If you're trading Sale you are trading him for a proven, cost-controlled, young MLB star. How many of those are out there, and how many are as cheap as Sale?

 

I would listen to Trout +, the plus for the difference in their contracts. That's how valuable Sale is.

Understood. And as a result of taking the risk, there needs to be a corresponding (or greater) potential reward. Is someone else willing to pony up the deal that makes it happen? Doubtful. But that doesn't mean you refuse to listen.

[iamshack]

If someone wants to pay the price I have in mind then they can feel free to offer it, I just don't think any team will believe it's a value trade back to them.

Well, to your point, a team that trades for Sale isn't likely going to be getting much organizational value, other than the value Sale provides relative to his contract. They would most likely be getting value for their major league roster, however.

[iamshack]

With Strasburg, there was little doubt he would be successful so long as he remained healthy. He had TJS not long after finishing his first year up and it'll probably be a miracle if he never has it again.

 

Of course not every prospect comes with the same questions, but look at a guy like Justin Smoak or Gordon Beckham - those guys were thought to be surefire multiple all-stars. I mean, we saw with Beckham after he came up that he looked like a future monster, and he fell into some massive struggles and never recovered. That can always happen.

 

The general point being that there are can't miss prospects that do miss. And there have been a lot of guys who have had absolutely phenomenal careers who were never ranked in the top 100 prospects. It's hard to make a trade like that when you're not forced to, you can see yourself competing while he's under contract, he's going to be a big reason why you're competing, and you can't really see yourself competing without him. Sure, you could conceivably be a competitive team due to trading Chris Sale, but it's far, far likelier that you will be competitive with Chris Sale sooner than without.

Agreed. Which is why you need to get more than one of them back, along with some pieces that you are more certain as to their performance.

[GreenSox]

Shack, I understand your perspective, I really do, but no matter what trade offers are out there they most likely wouldn't be in the Sox favor.

Agree. No one will give for Sale what he's worth in prospects, which I figure are 1 top 10, 2 other top 30s, 2 other top 100s and 2 interesting A ball prospects. I'm not sure any team has that and, if they do, they won't give it.

And I wouldn't either.

No one will give his value.

[southsider2k5]

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

 

Not necessarily. For example prospects have given no performance at all to the major league team, yet are valued extremely high.

[southsider2k5]

No, that is obviously Bryant.

 

But you've got to have SOMETHING that at the very least, you know you are going to get out of this if the worst case happens, all the prospects bust.

 

I want the Mike Stanton of two years ago, or the Mike Trout of a year or two ago as the centerpiece type piece of a deal for Chris Sale. Bryant may qualify in a year or two, but as of today, no.

[iamshack]

Not necessarily. For example prospects have given no performance at all to the major league team, yet are valued extremely high.

They have value to the organization, which is on whose behalf a GM is working.

 

[southsider2k5]

They have value to the organization, which is on whose behalf a GM is working.

 

My point is you can have the greatest collection of assets in the world, and it doesn't mean you are winning a single game.

[iamshack]

I want the Mike Stanton of two years ago, or the Mike Trout of a year or two ago as the centerpiece type piece of a deal for Chris Sale. Bryant may qualify in a year or two, but as of today, no.

I think you're setting the bar a bit high...but that's just my opinion.

[southsider2k5]

I think you're setting the bar a bit high...but that's just my opinion.

 

For one of the best five pitchers in the game, at a WAY below market contract, long term, not a chance. Chris Sale's value is insane, and it would take an insane return to get him. Prospects aren't good enough.

[iamshack]

My point is you can have the greatest collection of assets in the world, and it doesn't mean you are winning a single game.

i think the point you are making is persnickety, considering my argument as a whole, but fair enough.

[iamshack]

For one of the best five pitchers in the game, at a WAY below market contract, long term, not a chance. Chris Sale's value is insane, and it would take an insane return to get him. Prospects aren't good enough.

And all it takes is an injury to that left arm and poof, that value is severely diminished.

 

Nothing wrong with diversifying sometimes.

 

Besides, I've not argued for a deal solely based on prospects.

[southsider2k5]

And all it takes is an injury to that left arm and poof, that value is severely diminished.

 

Nothing wrong with diversifying sometimes.

 

Besides, I've not argued for a deal solely based on prospects.

 

And all it takes for prospects to do like prospects do, and bust at a high rate, and you have nothing.

[iamshack]

And all it takes for prospects to do like prospects do, and bust at a high rate, and you have nothing.

Which is why I'm not arguing for a package based solely on prospects, but you're refusing to read that or something.

[GGajewski18]

Which is why I'm not arguing for a package based solely on prospects, but you're refusing to read that or something.

 

Boston has zero young proven players. So yes, with any team I believe, we would be settling on prospects for Sale.

 

I for one would not trade Sale.

[Heads22]

Have fun selling tickets or trying to convince fans that you care about winning if you trade your star player when you absolutely don't have to.