witesoxfan Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The question is in the title. Why should they keep him? Why should they not? You know where I lean, but as an economist, that always garners an "it depends." I'm drunk and bored and want to light a fire. I like chaos. But seriously..why not? I've been away. Talk to me goose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 3, 2015 Author Share Posted October 3, 2015 Also, MBISNAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 WHERE THE f*** HAVE YOU BEEN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 01:43 AM) WHERE THE f*** HAVE YOU BEEN? Drinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 If this was any other sport, I'd say keep him. However, when you only impact every 5th game, it's probably worth trading him for multiple players that may be able to impact 145. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 You can't trade him cause the goal is to win. We have a pitching staff, aside from some awful relievers, is playoff caliber. Our ONLY hope is to keep all these pitchers except for the trash relievers and work on the everyday lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Giving up a cost controlled, elite pitcher is not a wise move. Most gms would be fired for that barring a fire sale. Plus the return would need to be worth more than the cost savings from the contract. Sale would need to be traded for several elite mlb-ready players. If he were to be dealt to the cubs, for example, the deal would need a Bryant, Rizzo AND a scwarber to make it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 02:11 AM) You can't trade him cause the goal is to win. We have a pitching staff, aside from some awful relievers, is playoff caliber. Our ONLY hope is to keep all these pitchers except for the trash relievers and work on the everyday lineup. It's not you'd trade him with the goal being to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) Baseball is a funny sport in the sense that trading Sale probably increases your chance of making the playoffs but significantly decreases your chance of advancing in the playoffs. Edited October 3, 2015 by TaylorStSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 01:25 AM) The question is in the title. Why should they keep him? Why should they not? You know where I lean, but as an economist, that always garners an "it depends." I'm drunk and bored and want to light a fire. I like chaos. But seriously..why not? I've been away. Talk to me goose. the funny part is this post encouraged me to start finishing off my 12 pack of smith & forge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 02:11 AM) Giving up a cost controlled, elite pitcher is not a wise move. Most gms would be fired for that barring a fire sale. Plus the return would need to be worth more than the cost savings from the contract. Sale would need to be traded for several elite mlb-ready players. If he were to be dealt to the cubs, for example, the deal would need a Bryant, Rizzo AND a scwarber to make it work. this pretty much, you can't trade sale for prospects so forget about that nonsense right now he has to be traded for cost-controlled elite MLB players, the goal being to pick up multiple guys that would fill in the holes you have now catcher, 2b, 3b, SP (since we'd be losing Sale) are the primary holes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (Real @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 02:40 AM) this pretty much, you can't trade sale for prospects so forget about that nonsense right now he has to be traded for cost-controlled elite MLB players, the goal being to pick up multiple guys that would fill in the holes you have now catcher, 2b, 3b, SP (since we'd be losing Sale) are the primary holes Schwarber, Bryant and Russell Only half green because that'd be what it takes, but it won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) You look at the package Boston supposedly offered for King Felix. If the Sox got the same players for Sale, they have weakened their team. Yeah, you might not win keepimg Sale, but to think you would win trading him isn't logical. If the goal is to get an immediate boost in your farm system ranking, or you plan to suck for a few years, trade him. If you want to win games, and have the guy who starts game 1 of every playoff series on the roster, you keep him. With the contract he has, to pick up his production somewhere else, it would cost a fortune. Edited October 3, 2015 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 01:24 PM) You look at the package Boston supposedly offered for King Felix. If the Sox got the same players for Sale, they have weakened their team. Yeah, you might not win keepimg Sale, but to think you would win trading him isn't logical. If the goal is to get an immediate boost in your farm system ranking, or you plan to suck for a few years, trade him. If you want to win games, and have the guy who starts game 1 of every playoff series on the roster, you keep him. With the contract he has, to pick up his production somewhere else, it would cost a fortune. you make an excellent point. the sox needs to build up a foundation ... when that is done, they will definitely need a #1 pitcher to take the team deep into the playoff. #1 sp do not grow on trees. the problem i also see is lack of depth in the system that can come in and help the team the sox have a surplus of assets to trade, trade shrewdly is or should be in order. but for now, they need to find those bodies in FA. i hate to keep harping on this, but it needs to be done. trading what the team has, and i mean no insult, it is being short sighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Even using my preferred "we're not competitive in 2016 and we need to act like it" model, there's no reason why this team can't be back to the top of the division in 2017 or 2018. We've got at least 1 more shot before the pressure really starts to rise to move him. When the White Sox do their "all in" thing again next year, trade Quintana for some career NL hitter close to free agency and come back totally surprised that the 2016 roster flopped just like the 2015 roster, then suddenly we'll have Sale for only 3 years and we'll be staring another year that should be a developmental year in the face. That's when the pressure starts rising. The time when I'd guess the price for Sale would line up with the price teams would pay for Sale will come sometime around 2017-2018. Moving everything for a guy with 2-2.5 years remaining is a gamble teams will take and one that would make sense for the White Sox. Of course, they'll still be insisting that their 15 games under .500 team is right there, so we won't even do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 12:56 PM) Even using my preferred "we're not competitive in 2016 and we need to act like it" model, there's no reason why this team can't be back to the top of the division in 2017 or 2018. We've got at least 1 more shot before the pressure really starts to rise to move him. When the White Sox do their "all in" thing again next year, trade Quintana for some career NL hitter close to free agency and come back totally surprised that the 2016 roster flopped just like the 2015 roster, then suddenly we'll have Sale for only 3 years and we'll be staring another year that should be a developmental year in the face. That's when the pressure starts rising. The time when I'd guess the price for Sale would line up with the price teams would pay for Sale will come sometime around 2017-2018. Moving everything for a guy with 2-2.5 years remaining is a gamble teams will take and one that would make sense for the White Sox. Of course, they'll still be insisting that their 15 games under .500 team is right there, so we won't even do that. an interesting POV .... can't fault it. i still think 3 things, 1. the sox does not have to trade any of their sp's Q or Sale or even Rodon. 2. they really can pickup what is needed in FA's, except for catcher 3. supplanted with a few smart trades of their surplus assets in the minors. to get a catcher and build up depth. Edited October 3, 2015 by LDF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) You look at the package Boston supposedly offered for King Felix. If the Sox got the same players for Sale, they have weakened their team. Yeah, you might not win keepimg Sale, but to think you would win trading him isn't logical. If the goal is to get an immediate boost in your farm system ranking, or you plan to suck for a few years, trade him. If you want to win games, and have the guy who starts game 1 of every playoff series on the roster, you keep him. With the contract he has, to pick up his production somewhere else, it would cost a fortune. I would not trade Sale. The reason is simple, you have other trade pieces. If a team offered a bundle for Sale, I would counter for a lesser bundle for Q or Rodon. But it may not cost a fortune to pick up Sale's production. For example, Boston has a bunch of young talented players--Bogaerts-Bradley-Betts-Vasquez-Swihart-Rodriguez all under similiar team friendly contracts. Now if Dombrowski offered 3 of them for Q I would jump at it. Unfortunately my guess is several of them have moved to the untouchable category as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Every hypothetical trade scenario I see with Sale involves another team emptying their farm system. Which no team is willing to do. What I never see are any scenarios where a team offers an all-star level position player as the centerpiece in return. That sort of deal is something that would make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 07:19 AM) I would not trade Sale. The reason is simple, you have other trade pieces. If a team offered a bundle for Sale, I would counter for a lesser bundle for Q or Rodon. But it may not cost a fortune to pick up Sale's production. For example, Boston has a bunch of young talented players--Bogaerts-Bradley-Betts-Vasquez-Swihart-Rodriguez all under similiar team friendly contracts. Now if Dombrowski offered 3 of them for Q I would jump at it. Unfortunately my guess is several of them have moved to the untouchable category as well. Betts is untouchable, for sure. Probably Bogaerts and the two Cuban kids, too. Edited October 3, 2015 by oldsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (Whitey @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) Every hypothetical trade scenario I see with Sale involves another team emptying their farm system. Which no team is willing to do. Agreed. The hypothetical trades are either that or an extremely underwhelming return. Sale is a once in a generation type pitcher. I wouldn't trade him for prospects, unless there are lots of them and they come from the Dodgers or Cubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I would never trade Sale to the Cubs for anything because it would make me so sad to see him having all that success in their uniform. I'd trade him to any other team before the Cubs and Yankees IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Mike F. @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 10:34 AM) I would never trade Sale to the Cubs for anything because it would make me so sad to see him having all that success in their uniform. I'd trade him to any other team before the Cubs and Yankees IMO. You wouldn't trade Sale for Schwarber, Torres, Bryant, and Baez? I see your point but if they make a "too good to refuse" offer then I'd take it. Edited October 3, 2015 by Jose Abreu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 03:22 PM) Agreed. The hypothetical trades are either that or an extremely underwhelming return. Sale is a once in a generation type pitcher. I wouldn't trade him for prospects, unless there are lots of them and they come from the Dodgers or Cubs. even then, i am bringing up this - this is a #1 sp who is elite. again, those kind do not come often let alone a #1 sp with a great cost control salary and yrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) Betts is untouchable, for sure. Probably Bogaerts and the two Cuban kids, too. Yep, Betts quietly had a great year (5 WAR). I've said all along it would have to be a package of something like Betts, E. Rodriguez, Swihart and a good prospect. Unfortunately I don't think Boston would do something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 10:04 AM) Yep, Betts quietly had a great year (5 WAR). I've said all along it would have to be a package of something like Betts, E. Rodriguez, Swihart and a good prospect. Unfortunately I don't think Boston would do something like that. Nor should they, with all their abundant resources, the number of pitchers on the market this year...they're essentially in the same position as the Cubs last off-season. As badly as the Porcello, Ramirez and Sandoval moves went for them, they're always one great off-season away from being back in instant contention again, although Toronto's going to be a tough out for the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.