Buehrlesque

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 27, 2017 -> 08:18 AM) No way. If he gets sent for a cup of coffee in AA this year (which I think he will) and then to the AFL and performs, he'll begin next year in Birmingham. If he is cruising along in June/July there is no reason he can't be called straight up from AA. True, it doesn't happen as often with hitters, but it does sometimes happen. I'm not saying it's the more likely outcome, but it is not at all unreasonable to think he's in Chicago mid-year next year or as a September call-up If he gets to Birmingham in a few weeks, he would definitely be on track for (at least) a cup of coffee in the bigs a year from now, and I would say it is the most likely outcome. It would actually be a disappointment if he didn't, because it would mean something went wrong or he got hurt.

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 11:24 PM) I don't mean to bury TA, but lets put to rest this idea that his gift of a contract extension was anything at all like the previous extensions offered to others in the past: Prior to his extension, Sale pitched ~300 IP over 2 1/2 seasons in The Show. Prior to that, he was a 1st round pick, before which he pitched 3 years on a scholarship in D1. Prior to his extension, Quintana pitched ~300 IP over 2 seasons in The Show. Prior to that, he pitched for 8 seasons in MiLB. Prior to his extension, Eaton had had ~900 PA over 1 full season here, & 2 cups of coffee in AZ. Prior to that, he'd played 5 seasons in MiLB; prior to that, he played 3 seasons on scholarship in D1. By contrast, Tim Anderson was gifted financial independence after a measly 99 or so games, & 55 AAA games. He wasn't even on scholarship when he went to juco, & he'd only played 2 years in HS. On balance, he hadn't done enough to CONCLUSIVELY prove that he EARNED the contract; he was GIVEN it. So, when someone wants I conflate the gift to Anderson with the contracts that Sale, Q, & Eaton EARNED, I have to roll my eyes. Don't get me wrong, as a Sox fan, I want TA to become a star. But his contract extension was premature at best, & ill-advised, at worst. I agree that TA didn't "earn" the extension, but that doesn't make it a bad move. The Sox are (hopefully) going to have a lot of young, pre-arb talent coming up in the next couple of years. The more they can sign to these kinds of extensions, the better. Plus, as a bit of a silver lining, Anderson's struggles may help justify other players signing these kinds of deals and locking in some money. They can't all be ultra team-friendly homeruns. If everyone who signed an extension like this outplayed their salary, why would any player ever do it again?

QUOTE (Scoots @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 04:32 AM) So, short-term thinking, what does the rotation realistically look like for 2018? You'd have to think Giolito is going to get his shot at his first full major league stint, regardless how bad he is at AAA this season. Lopez is probably there. Rodon obviously. Who else? I dont think Dunning will be up at the start of the season. Shields and Holland will be gone, (thank goodness), so who mans the other 2 spots? Another couple rentals?? Or are we trying our luck with Holmberg again? If Stephens or Adams gets a chance to make some AAA starts next month, they wouldn't be out of the running for a rotation spot in 2018. I'll go with Rodon Lopez Shields Giolito Scrap heap veteran to start the year, then Stephens Fulmer and Danish in the pen.

QUOTE (harkness @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 11:19 PM) just some data for people about bunting (some have read similar things, but I'm sure not everyone has) "Sacrifice bunting is giving the defense a free out. Free. No work, no need to make quality pitches. According to ESPN Stats and Info, the sacrifice bunt results in an out just over 96% of the time in major league baseball. According to a 2011 study of high school baseball in Texas, an attempted sacrifice bunt resulted in an out 83% of the time. This out is just about the most sure thing you can give. Attempted sac bunts in the bigs also result in the lead runner being throw out 17% of the time and a double play being turned 8% of the time. It is understood that the out is granted in the situation and an understood part of a sacrifice, but let’s look at other methods of getting to second if you insist on playing for one run. From 2000-2014, base stealers in MLB were successful 72.3% of the time. The success rate is loftier at the high school level (not including the increased likelihood of a wild pitch or passed ball at the amateur level). Would you rather have a 73% chance of having a runner at second with no outs or an 83% chance of having a runner at second with one out? The answer seems obvious. Just how important is it to get that man to second anyway? According to Dan Levitt of baseballanalysts.com, using a study that gathered information over 15 years of professional baseball, the expected run table for an inning sets at .877 in situations where there is a runner at first with no outs. However, if you decide to bunt the runner over, your expected run table for the inning drops to .693 with a runner on second and one out. In essence, you are voluntarily killing your own rally. In addition to the expected run table, basic percentages say that the sac bunt is the wrong play. According to Baseball Prospectus, you have a 24.4 percent better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you have of scoring a runner from second with one out. 24.4 percent! Swing away. In addition, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out." This is everything right here! This needs to be printed out on paper.... no, chiseled into rock... and put in every office, dugout, scoreboard and locker room at the stadium.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 03:53 PM) When the team is good, it needs to stop. Let these kids get the fundamentals of this sort of stuff down. Given Anderson's speed, he may be able to steal 5 hits a year by putting down a good bunt here and there. Bunting for a hit is different than sacrifice bunting. If Timmy wants to hone his ability to bunt for a hit, that's fine. But what he did yesterday was not that.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 11:35 AM) Patrick Nolan‏ @SSS_pnoles The White Sox have 17 failed sacrifice bunt attempts in 2017. Half the remaining American League teams haven't even attempted more than 17. Wow. That Anderson bunt last night was just the worst. I hate bunting more than anything, but last night was felt even more infuriating and inexcusable than normal. It just has to stop.

QUOTE (GermanSock @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 02:31 PM) Article on fangraphs. Says hahn got a ton of talent but is leaning toeards the risky high ceiling lowish floor side (technically every prospect is risky but a benintendi less so than a moncada).teams are just very clingy to their high floor advanced prospects. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-white-s...g-bets-on-risk/ I don't know how much of this I buy. All prospects are risky, and the so-called "safest" and most MLB-ready ones aren't available in trades anyway. Plus, several of the safe options have struggled themselves this year (Bregman, Swanson, Meadows). So there is no surefire way to combat that. The one point I will concede is that through all this trading and drafting, the Sox have obtained mostly bat-first guys with questionable defense, which is a little worrisome and does narrow their avenues to success a little. But overall, I think RH did well and didn't leave anything better on the table.

I'll play, and as a bonus I'll rank them in order of likeliest starter to likeliest reliever: Adams - Likeliest starter Dunning - Starter Kopech - Starter Giolito - Starter Lopez - Starter Hansen - Borderline starter Stephens - Borderline reliever Guerrero - Reliever Fulmer - Reliever Danish - Reliever Cease - Likeliest reliever

I am still stunned at this trade! Once it became clear the "depth" packages weren't realistic, Hahn went out and got the best headliner possible. Great trade! I am not a big fan of Cease, but this move is all about Eloy.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 12, 2017 -> 10:50 AM) And it wasn't Q. That was sort of taken out of context by many. It was a Hahn quote from Soxfest when someone asked him about trade timing. He said he had something that he thought would be done on Christmas Eve that didn't happen. I'm thinking it's Robertson to the Nats, because a couple of months later Hahn said there hasn't been anything close with Q. I thought the Christmas Eve trade was the three-way with the Yankees and Pirates. Obviously, nothing was ever confirmed, but I thought it was generally assumed that Quintana was involved. IIRC, at Soxfest Hahn sais that two trades fell apart over the winter. One pretty clearly was Robertson to the Nats, the other was the Christmas Eve three way. The players involved in that three-way were never revealed. Is any of that incorrect?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:24 AM) I find Albies so underrated here and it's entirely due to comps. QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:31 AM) I would really like to land a player like Albies, as I also feel he is very underrated. He is the sort of player that really can help a championship caliber roster with his bat, speed and defense. The Braves could definitely swing a Q trade, but have yet to show the willingness to part with top prospects. Ironically I agree with you guys. I like Albies and think he is underrated. But the Sox would have to show me they're willing to move Moncada off second base for Albies to make sense. If htey trade for Albies today and move Moncada to CF (or 3B I Guess), I'm all for it.

QUOTE (KnightsOnMintSt @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) The way I look at it for Q, is there are a couple teams I could realistically see him going to, and each one of those teams has at least one player they would HAVE to give up if they want Q. Yankees: Frazier OR Torres Brewers: Brinson Astros: Tucker Braves: Albies Red Sox: Devers Cubs: Jimenez OR Happ Rockies: Rodgers Cardinals: Reyes AND Kelley Probably nothing gets done if these teams aren't willing to give up those guys. We saw how firm teams stood with their top guys in regards to a Chris Sale trade, so if a Q trade goes down, I'll be very interested to see the pieces. I agree with all of this except I would switch the Braves piece for Ron Acuna. The only players on this list that I think are understandably completely untouchable are Torres and maybe Devers. Everyone else should be in play.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 10, 2017 -> 03:03 PM) Quintana & Swarzak to the Yankees for Frazier, Adams, Andujar, & Abreu Robertson & cash to the Nationals for Kieboom & Luzardo Frazier to the Red Sox for Chatham Melky for lottery ticket & some salary relief I like this overall plan, specifically the Yankees trade. It's realistic and fair. If for whatever reason the Yankees aren't biting, I would do Quintana to the Dodgers for Verdugo, Buehler and Calhoun or Diaz. I would try to hold out for Gavin Lux to be added as a throw in, since he could be a nice buy low guy, but in any case, I think both sides make this deal. The Dodgers are in position to withstand losing those good but not "untouchable" types, and are definitely built to win the World Series. Verdugo's contact and hit skill would be a nice complement to the more "dynamic" hitters the Sox have in the pipeline. On the second trade, I would try to entice the Nationals to do a Soto deal by packaging Kahnle with Robertson. Their bullpen is so awful, they might entertain the idea of a two-front upgrade. If they balk at that, Kieboom and Luzardo seems fair for Robertson alone. I think Frazier ultimately goes to the Cardinals, and Melky to the Rays.

QUOTE (Quin @ Jul 10, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) So, who are the suitors for Q? Astros Yankees Brewers Dodgers Braves Cubs Rockies That's a nice large group of bidders. I think it's a three-team race between the Dodgers, Yankees and Rockies. The Astros are completely unrealistic and underwhelming. The Braves and Brewers will refuse to include their best prospects. And I don't see a Sox-Cubs blockbuster coming together.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 9, 2017 -> 09:56 AM) I like your Yankees proposal the best. Was tough because you included Whitley with Tucker and Whitley is the pitcher I've had my eye on since last winter so I struggled with which I thought was the best proposal. But man, Whitley would fit right in with Hansen and Dunning in Winston-Salem. Well this is interesting. I wonder what he's basing this on. The Rockies are a dream match up. First, they have tons of position player prospects - Rodgers, Dahl, Tapia, McMahon. Second, they would benefit more than most organizations from shifting a potential position player asset to a known quantity SP. Not that guys like Rodgers and Dahl are ever expendable, but it is much easier for the Rockies to plug an anonymous player in offensively and see him succeed given their ballpark. Acquiring a veteran top of the rotation start is much more difficult for them. Lastly, their front office is crazy enough to entertain some bold moves.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 9, 2017 -> 07:38 AM) Packages I would take for Quintana: HOU: Tucker, Whitley, Alvarez NYY: Frazier, Adams, Andujar, Abreu MIL: Brinson, Ortiz, Diaz CHC: Jimenez, Cease, Candelario, Perlaza ATL: Acuna, Anderson, Riley Any of these riduculous? Yankees give up four top 10 guys, but Frazier is a cut below those other OFs based on the most recent mid-year prospect rankings. And it would clear three spots from their 40 man roster crunch. These are really good and realistic. One you didn't mention that I think would be valuable and realistic is LAD: Verdugo, Buehler, Calhoun/Diaz

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 7, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) Exactly. Ray, Diaz, Clark, Hader and Ortiz probably does it. But that is literally 2-6. People tend to propose massive depth packages to compensate for a lack of a big headliner or "untouchable" (as an aside, I think that term is waaay overused, especially when it comes for non-rentals like Quintana). I think the opposite is more likely — that a team will include a big shot headliner prospect and then skimp on the second and third pieces. That way, the team really only loses one significant piece (although it's a big one), and their system isn't gutted.

Wide disparity between BP and BA on Juan Soto. BP has him #12, BA has him #94.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 6, 2017 -> 07:13 PM) Kieboom was in the 50-65 range according to bp chat Anybody know the reports on this guy? I know he's hitting well in A ball right now, but how's his glove? Will he stick at SS? Would he be an above-average 3B?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 6, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) 11. Ronald Acuna, OF, Atlanta Braves Why He’ll Succeed: He’s 19 and mashing in Double-A, after mashing in Advanced-A, after mashing in A. The tools back up the performance and he’s closer to the majors than you think. He might end up sacrificing some hit for pop, but he potentially pairs that with a centerfield profile. And it’s significant pop. Why He Might Fail: In five years he has a chance to be 24, and the swing-and-miss might eat up his offensive value while the body forces him to right field. I would say the chances are extremely high. Haha. I've seen mixed reviews on that. Some scouts think age 24 is his ceiling in five years. I think, with the right coaching staff, he has a pretty good shot at getting there.

It's an interesting list. Huge jumps for some favorite targets: Soto, Acuna, Buehler. Nice to see Hansen in there!

I think most people here severely overvalue what Kahnle could fetch in a trade. Give his short track record, his complete anonymity and the general volatility of relief pitchers, I would be shocked if the Sox got a single top 50 guy for him, let alone a package built around one.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) Their system really falls off after Jimenez. Who else would you realistically accept that is not on the major league roster? (Not Schwarber either, I doubt he gets moved) Jimenez/De la Cruz/Candelario? Anything less and I don't think it would be a good deal for the Sox So is Ian Happ just off the table now because he got called up?

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 03:22 PM) Way too much risk for the White Sox in a Maitan/Pache/Jackson package in my opinion. Maitan is 17 and has yet to have a professional at bat, and Pache has just recently started to break out. Sox will be looking for more established prospects most likely. I just don't see the Braves having deadline interest, but they could emerge if Quintana is still on the market in the offseason. Agreed. Without Acuna, a Braves trade gets too risky or too pitching-heavy and doesn't make as much sense IMO.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) I don't agree with this bidding war notion. As I said before, the trade market doesn't work like a normal commodities market, where things are transparent and information is widely available. It isn't as though Hahn is going to be auctioning these guys off at 6 pm on the 31st or something. He needs to be working with serious suitors to get deals done that make sense for the future. It is very unlikely that he is going to finally get to that place with one team, and then call the others and tell them "Cashman has offered this, can you beat it?" He's going to field calls from all interested parties, and let them know what the price is. If someone wants to meet it, they will (or something close). Also, keep in mind, these discussions have been ongoing for like 6 months now. The groundwork has been laid. Now we just wait until the heat gets turned up on someone enough that they become serious about meeting Hahn's prices. I agree with all of this. It's nice to draw parallels to stocks/commodities, etc., but the comparison only goes so far. After all, players don't have the same universally accepted value as currency. The Sox need to find a great value (in their estimation) and a great match for their organizational needs. Most of the ground work is probably already laid as you said.