Jump to content
reiks12

Creative Trades

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

The Reds.

I had a Senzel trade in my Offseason Plan, and it was Cease, Burger, and Hansen. Although as someone pointed out, Burger doesn't make a ton of sense for the Reds, because they would still have India blocking Burger. So swap out Burger for Gonzalez, or Rutherford, or Adolfo, or Walker. 

Either way, I can't see the Reds giving up a top 5 hitting prospect in Senzel without getting a blue chip pitching prospect like Kopech or Cease in return.

Still need to hang onto our prospects. Normally you would use free agency to supplement the draft picks who become part of the core. This year perhaps makes it the other way around. If we land Machado /Harper/Eloy it moves the competitive window up and perhaps we add more free agents , maybe even enough to become fairly competitive right away given the right set of circumstances ( progress by Moncado,Gio, Rey and Cleveland downsizing a bit).

If we become competitive right away that gives our prospects still in the minors another year of development. If the FA pieces we put around H/M have 1/2/3 yr deals they can be traded in any year of their deal or kept for purposes of winning. The longer we keep productive FA agents the longer we have to let Robert , Madrigal, Dunning , Cease, Sheets , Rutherford , Gonzales etc. to become finished products and also allowed Kopech Burger to heal.

We can work the prospects into the 25 man roster when the time is right and to replace the FA's we end up trading off thus cutting payroll and staying competitive while allowing arb raises to the older successful prospects if Moncada and company show improvement.

I know it's backwards from the usual process but it can actually work out better and keep the window open longer.

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if we could get a window of negotiation if we traded for Goldschmidt. Take him and Greinke's from the dbacks. I'd only do this if we lost out on Machado and Harper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice mentions Goldy & Paxton here as possible White Sox fits.  I know they've been mentioned in other threads separately, but maybe this will get some more of the creative juices flowing for some posters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t really think we’re at a point to start making trades. Need to continue evaluating and developing talent while making free agent signings.

The time to augment the roster with trades will come - but that should only be when holes are more clearly defined.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

I would argue upgrading prospects isn't "not hanging on" to them. 

Any time you trade 3 prospects for 1 prospect  that means you are risking 3 future major leaguers against one. If the one fizzles or gets hurt and the 3 become good its becomes a terrible trade worst case scenario. Best case is you don't make the trade and get 3 very good major leaguers instead of 1.  There is strength in numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Any time you trade 3 prospects for 1 prospect  that means you are risking 3 future major leaguers against one. If the one fizzles or gets hurt and the 3 become good its becomes a terrible trade worst case scenario. Best case is you don't make the trade and get 3 very good major leaguers instead of 1.  There is strength in numbers.

It also never happens.

Edited by soxfan2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Any time you trade 3 prospects for 1 prospect  that means you are risking 3 future major leaguers against one. If the one fizzles or gets hurt and the 3 become good its becomes a terrible trade worst case scenario. Best case is you don't make the trade and get 3 very good major leaguers instead of 1.  There is strength in numbers.

Somehow you're treating all 4 prospects as equal, and ignoring that Hansen and Burger/Gonzalez/Rutherford/Walker all have HUGE bust likelihoods, while Senzel is just about the surest prospect in baseball to hit, behind Vlad Jr. Even a lot of people think Cease is destined for a bullpen job or an injury riddled future.

 

But sure, ignore quality and take quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Somehow you're treating all 4 prospects as equal, and ignoring that Hansen and Burger/Gonzalez/Rutherford/Walker all have HUGE bust likelihoods, while Senzel is just about the surest prospect in baseball to hit, behind Vlad Jr. Even a lot of people think Cease is destined for a bullpen job or an injury riddled future.

 

But sure, ignore quality and take quantity.

I'd put him behind Eloy as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 10:40 PM, Whitesox27 said:

Dunning, Hansen, Rutherford for Senzel. Who says no?

Reds say no. Senzel is in the upper echelon level of prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Somehow you're treating all 4 prospects as equal, and ignoring that Hansen and Burger/Gonzalez/Rutherford/Walker all have HUGE bust likelihoods, while Senzel is just about the surest prospect in baseball to hit, behind Vlad Jr. Even a lot of people think Cease is destined for a bullpen job or an injury riddled future.

 

But sure, ignore quality and take quantity.

I'm not ignoring quality. You have the highest upside for Senzel  while ignoring the upside for the others calling them HUGE busts potentially. My scenario is seeing the upside of all of them. I just want to wait til we really know what we have. There will always be 3rd basemen available. Yes Senzel looks great but Cease could be also and the others , we just don't know at this point. Just rather take my chances that Cease will be at least the equal of Senzel going forward  while hoping the other 5 you mentioned can provide some depth. Besides with both in rebuild mode that trade is highly unlikely. Hahn has not given any indication that he would trade multiple prospects for 1 prospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Hahn has not given any indication that he would trade multiple prospects for 1 prospect.

Actually, I believe he has said EXACTLY that, maybe save for the "multiple" part of the quote. But yes, I do recall a quote from him posted on this very site speaking about trading prospects for prospects to better balance out needs.

The Sox and Cubs will also never make a big trade! Remember that trope that tried to limit Hahn's trading options?

Edited by ChiliIrishHammock24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 4:01 AM, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Is it just a running joke now to pretend that the Rockies are trying to give Jon Gray away for nothing? Is this just being meme'd to death by Soxtalk?

I am also trying to figure this out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Actually, I believe he has said EXACTLY that, maybe save for the "multiple" part of the quote. But yes, I do recall a quote from him posted on this very site speaking about trading prospects for prospects to better balance out needs.

The Sox and Cubs will also never make a big trade! Remember that trope that tried to limit Hahn's trading options?

I have a bit of an issue with you capitalizing EXACTLY maybe save the" multiple" part of the quote . That really doesn't make it EXACTLY then does it? You contradict yourself all in one sentence. I remember it as him saying prospect for prospect  which means one for one.

Now, since this seems to be the bone of contention between us , I have been trying to find the EXACT quote by listening to podcasts and googling but for now I can't find it. I will continue to look and if I find that you are correct I will say so.

As for the Cubs /Sox trade I know I was one of those who thought it was very possible and even said they matched up perfectly and I am sure if you do the research you can find my posts about it. In the meantime I have my own searching to do with the Hahn quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I have a bit of an issue with you capitalizing EXACTLY maybe save the" multiple" part of the quote . That really doesn't make it EXACTLY then does it? You contradict yourself all in one sentence. I remember it as him saying prospect for prospect  which means one for one.

Now, since this seems to be the bone of contention between us , I have been trying to find the EXACT quote by listening to podcasts and googling but for now I can't find it. I will continue to look and if I find that you are correct I will say so.

As for the Cubs /Sox trade I know I was one of those who thought it was very possible and even said they matched up perfectly and I am sure if you do the research you can find my posts about it. In the meantime I have my own searching to do with the Hahn quote.

Damn ya, really got me there. I shouldn't have capitalized "exactly". Totally roasted. :huh

 

Anyway, if that's true that you said it was very possible that the Sox and Cubs would make a blockbuster, despite the overwhelming narrative being that they would never, then I guess I just need to wait for you to shift your opinion on a prospect for prospect trade so it can become a feasible course of action for Rick Hahn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Damn ya, really got me there. I shouldn't have capitalized "exactly". Totally roasted. :huh

 

Anyway, if that's true that you said it was very possible that the Sox and Cubs would make a blockbuster, despite the overwhelming narrative being that they would never, then I guess I just need to wait for you to shift your opinion on a prospect for prospect trade so it can become a feasible course of action for Rick Hahn.

If theres a prospect for prospect type deal, it won't be a 3 for 1 where they get the better prospect. That just doesn't happen in the league.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creative trades you say?

Angels get: Luis Robert, Nick Madrigal, Dylan Cease, Dane Dunning
Sox get: Mike Trout

That's four top-100 prospects for two years of Trout. Who says no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Buehrlesque said:

Creative trades you say?

Angels get: Luis Robert, Nick Madrigal, Dylan Cease, Dane Dunning
Sox get: Mike Trout

That's four top-100 prospects for two years of Trout. Who says no?

 

Us.  JFS us...lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Buehrlesque said:

Creative trades you say?

Angels get: Luis Robert, Nick Madrigal, Dylan Cease, Dane Dunning
Sox get: Mike Trout

That's four top-100 prospects for two years of Trout. Who says no?

 

Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Buehrlesque said:

Creative trades you say?

Angels get: Luis Robert, Nick Madrigal, Dylan Cease, Dane Dunning
Sox get: Mike Trout

That's four top-100 prospects for two years of Trout. Who says no?

 

Thats too creative for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Buehrlesque said:

Creative trades you say?

Angels get: Luis Robert, Nick Madrigal, Dylan Cease, Dane Dunning
Sox get: Mike Trout

That's four top-100 prospects for two years of Trout. Who says no?

 

That would change the rebuild a bit. Robert, Madrigal and Cease are 3 of the huge pieces of the rebuild. To trade them for one veteran is wild. Trout turns 28 in August. Love him but ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×