Chisoxfn

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) While too soon to give up on him being a starter, I see Carson Fulmer having the potential to be a very good reliever in time. If he can just focus for an inning or two and harness his raw stuff he could be an overpowering setup man or closer If he comes out next year throwing like he did late in the season, I'm going to severely hinder his chances of much anything. He can not excel pitching the way he did, with the overall lack of velocity / stuff, late in the season. I hope for him, it was more of a fatigue aspect and/or mechanical issue that is worked out and we see his velocity and stuff back. The performance I saw wasn't one that was a lack of performance because they were raw, it was a guy that looked meh.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 11:52 AM) I was skeptical of this strategy and have been talking both sides of this, so take my analysis with a grain of salt. http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=15365 But I read that and think "huh, maybe taking McCarthy WOULD get us back a prospect". It is why I would be open to a trade for Q that also included us taking on a McCarthy, especially if it maximized the upside pieces we could get (and I think that would be an easier sale across the board for the Dodgers front office).

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 10:26 AM) Nightengale said he would be surprised if Q wasn't traded sometime this week, so I'm still holding out hope. That being said, it's been awfully quiet lately. Is that recent? I think with the lack of much anything going on, if a deal goes down, it will be with a team that hasn't been heavily discussed (at least from a recent rumor perspective).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) I think Turner can turn into a decent reliever. Minor league deal for a formerly very heralded 25 year old that can still get it up to 98 seems like a no brainer. He definitely has sucked the last few years. And the White Sox considering he could be a rotation piece last year was either total BS or very laughable. I agree. I never quite got the idea why we weren't trying to see if he could be an effective reliever. The whole notion of him as a starter was awful, imo.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 08:51 AM) Ryan Pace is drafting a QB. Probably in the 1st round. I think it will be Trubinsky.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 07:42 AM) For what it is worth, Stubbs was outhit by Tim Tebow in the Arizona Fall League and batted only .171 in 20 games That just signals that Stubbs is far from sniffing the mlb level I think I just like the potential upside of a catcher plus a guy like Reed who raked in the minors and maybe just needs a bit more exposure at the major league level. Might blow up too though. I try not to get overworked at a sample size as small as AFL, especially because a guy could be there to work on a specific matter, which can have a direct impact on his stats. That said, it is always hard to look at some of the offensive minor league numbers of the Astros A/AA/AAA guys because those leagues are such hitters havens.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 07:35 AM) I am not enamored with Musgrove and would def take a package centered around Tucker/Martes & two more As long as the other two are pretty good, I'm okay with that.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 07:35 AM) Not if they're willing to part with Reed and Stubbs along with Martes and Tucker. I am on board with that.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:43 PM) Too many positions to fill not named "quarterback" and no good quarterback prospects. And before you say "Dak Prescott", know every team passed on him 4 times, including the Cowboys. That could mean we go the veteran QB route (Romo, for example). If people think we are going to go into next year with Barkley and Hoyer, well, I'd be left speachless at that. By the way, I think if we got rid of Fox, I'd like to hire McDaniels and keep Fangio. I doubt it would work cause you don't want to force a DC on a coach and no one knows how their dynamic might work, but I do like the idea of McDaniels running the show and being our QB guru. I'd also be open to Shanny's son. I'd want an offensive coach and the front office would then need to give big bucks to Vic. Toub is another name that I would probably think long and hard about, as long as he had the clout to bring in the right offensive mind. The nice thing about the offensive head coach (with a well paid DC) is that you don't run the risk of your offensive system walking out the door in the midst of your QB's development. I think that is a bigger risk then a DC walking out the door.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 07:13 AM) I do think Musgrove is the hang up. I also think Q winds up in Houston for Martes, Tucker and others. I wonder if it takes a third team to get a deal done with the Astros for Q.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:25 PM) The headliner still equates to the majority of the value in the deal. I'm not trying to be argumentative...but stop and think what Q's value has been for the last 4 seasons. Now tell me what are the chances Torres ends up giving me that kind of value, projecting him as a 19 year old? MAYBE 25-30%? And 4 years of control is a lot of control still left...not all that much different then what we are getting back. Risk / Reward on this proposed deal just isn't there, imo.

QUOTE (GermanSoxFan @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:14 PM) That's true, but as a centerpiece for one of the best pitchers in the game with 4 years of team control, I'd be more intrested in a guy who has shown that he can handle AA and is more projectable. That's why I'm not all that excited about a trade with Houston. IMO the perfect trade partner would be the Cubs. But I doubt that'll happen. What you said. And RonRon....I don't think bust rates of these top prospects are all that much different as bust rates of years past. The reality is, especially for younger players, the unknown is the unknown. A lot can change for a 19 year old. At the ripe old age of 18, Ken Griffey Jr was crushing it in AA. My long and short of it is, Tucker might have a ton of tools, but there have been millions of guys with tons of tools who were 19 and put up the type of numbers Tucker has thus far, who didn't go on to even have a cup of coffee. If he was doing what Griffey did, okay, we are talking centerpiece (and obviously in the case of Griffey, we are talking untouchable)...but for god sakes, people are throwing out Ted Williams (possibly the best hitter who ever lived) as a comp. Get real here. I think when you do that people need a reality check on things. Or Mike Trout...who at age 19 was putting up a .958 OPS in AA. Again, just using OPS here, but I could go to a ton of different stats. And I do agree, power potential comes later so OPS might be lower, but in general, is still a pretty damn good stat, imo (despite not being overly "advanced), when it comes to evaluating offensive production. Albeit you need to project the fact that doubles can become hr's, etc, as young kids grow out.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:58 PM) He's not going to end up in CF in all likelihood as he fills out...from the one game I saw him in person, he's definitely impressive and has the swagger of a first round draft pick, but that can erode very quickly in AA. Probably better off holding out for THE #1 piece in a deal they're targeting, unless that happens to really be Tucker despite his ETA and they can also jam Reed into the deal...so their scouts would have to make that determination. Early season injuries (or spring training) or trade deadline pressures will also provide the Sox leverage. Of course, he could get hurt in the WBC if you hold onto him, too. I like Tucker a lot more as a #2 or ideally a #3 with upside. Probably a bit aggressive, but in general, more in lines of what I'd be pushing and to be frank, none of us know what discussions are going on right now, and if the right deal was already there, we'd see the deal done already.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:50 PM) But when I get one guy who is an elite prospect, plus a lot of other high upside guys, I can see scenarios where we win the trade, scenarios where we break even, and of course risks exists where we get whacked. In this astros proposal, I see a lot of scenarios where it doesn't look all that great. And to be honest, I see some of those same things with the Red Sox deal, but not near as many as with this "proposed" Astros deal. Unfair or fair, I will admit, my opinion would differ if you replaced the other pitchers with a young major league position player, who looked like he'd be a solid everyday player for a while, plus another top 50 position player prospect (to go with Tucker). Not when I think there are other teams / offers that can give us a package of quality, but also positional quality. When it came to Eaton, I liked the deal cause we had to address pitching and we got tons of value where I absolutely feel we maximized what the trade market would offer for Adam (and then some). For Sale, I don't think we maximized, but think we got a fair price (which is fine) and we got some guys who could be monsters (hopefully the good kind of monster).

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) The hazard of the rebuild, especially this particular White Sox rebuild that is being fueled by massive high profile trades. I'm still not a big fan of the Chris Sale trade for a lot of the reasons you mention here. But uncertainty is just part of this direction they are taking. They are out of Chris Sale's to trade, anyone they get from now on will either carry substantial risk or clear limitations. But when I get one guy who is an elite prospect, plus a lot of other high upside guys, I can see scenarios where we win the trade, scenarios where we break even, and of course risks exists where we get whacked. In this astros proposal, I see a lot of scenarios where it doesn't look all that great. And to be honest, I see some of those same things with the Red Sox deal, but not near as many as with this "proposed" Astros deal.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:38 PM) Right. He could fall apart next season and never get it back, he's not past the point where you've moved past the "can he even play?" doubts that plague all prospects his age. The Ted Williams comparison is really just how he looks swinging the bat, he'll never be Ted Williams. Nobody ever will. But as a prospect I think he's as good as it gets with the bat. He makes contact, he drives the ball, he works counts, he has good pitch recognition...I think when the preseason rankings come out people will be a little surprised where he lands. Yeah...this will be very "caufield" of me, but I also remember people such as Ryan Sweeney, who had gorgeous swings, but never developed the power, etc. I just don't generally like dealing someone like Q in a deal that is higher risk then it needs to / should be. And of course, I, like I presume all of us, have never seen him play, I just am a realistic and am generally skeptic of various comps, but also always very skeptic of the comps thrown out of 19 year olds. Hawkins once had all kinds of fanatic comps (before he wet the bed...albeit he wet the bed in his 1st full year vs. Tucker who was solid during most of his first full year and then finished it strongly in a small sample size of High A. A lot can change with AA at bats though and all of a sudden, the "holes" start to show up and "Ted Williams" turn into guys that never even get a cup of coffee.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) Just looking at how the Sale trade went, teams don't appear to be willing to part with close to majors dynamic talent. I'd rather take the big lottery tickets with Tucker/Rodgers than downgrading for less impact talent. I don't think we should get much less when we trade Q then we did Sale. We got the #1 prospect in baseball (or close to it) in Moncada plus a guy who is trending upwards (and already is very highly ranked) and two other good prospects with upside to be top 100 type guys. We are getting nowhere near the quality and to be frank, aren't really getting much more "quantity" either. I see it a step down from what I thought was a relatively "fair" trade by the each colored Sox. I actually am on record as saying I wish we were able to get one more guy for Sale, but that didn't happen. I think the difference in "stuff / perception" between Q & Sale should largely be made up for by the extra "control" that comes with Q. I am also a proponent of moving him now vs. later, given that we are obviously on a path to rebuild and don't see Q being a long term cog in that wheel...so the risk you have keeping him (either injuries or just regression) outweighs any incremental value generated by holding him longer (imo).

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) I think there is potential in Tucker's bat that is almost unmatched across the minor leagues. Its only 16 games but what he did in A+ as a 19 year old is pretty impressive, and everyone agrees he has a ton more potential for power than he has yet realized. That kind of bat who can surely develop to be a good corner OF defensively is a guy that starts to transcend the scale a little. Nothing against Robles, I guess I used him as an example to show how much I like Tucker. Why are we ignoring the other 101 games where he put up a .750 OPS? Not knocking it, but sample sizes are small, no matter how good the tools are. Risk / Reward just doesn't seem there to me and I know I'm downplaying him / playing the cynic, but people generally overrate this type of guys cause the "sky" is still the limit and everyone ignores the potential hurdles in the way.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) I put Tucker ahead of Robles by a decent margin. Really on the level of about Giolito/Kopech in terms of his quality, perhaps a smidge above those two. I'm not saying he'll have this kind of career, because nobody ever really has, but he looks like Ted Williams in the batter's box. I'm not the first person to say that either. Tucker is a fine centerpiece to the deal and gives the Sox a monster corner OF prospect to lean on. Ted Williams, of the career 1.116 OPS vs. a guy with a career OPS hovering around .700? Remember when Courtney Hawkins was the 58th prospect in all of baseball? High school guys tend to get overrated by the publications, imo, and people get ridiculous projections on them, when there is so much development / unknown to go. This isn't to say I'm anti high school guys, but I'm anti getting a 19 year old as the top piece in the draft (unless said guy is way ahead of his growth curve and already dominating in AA / AAA type levels).

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) Tucker is still at least two full seasons away from the majors, correct He still projects pretty well as a corner outfielder with 20 home run potential and solid hitting skills I have a hard time projecting 19 year old kids, to be honest with you. I totally downplay that. When you look at all the busts and the risks that could happen, especially with high school talent, its just get so freaking hard. We are trading a guy who is, if not elite, damn near elite, and under cost control for a very long time. I just can't justify it when the best guy we get is 19 with plenty of potential reasons for downside. Hell, he put up a .750 OPS in 2016 and in 63 games in 2015, put up a .647 OPS. No matter how good his tools are and how high of a pick he was, I just can't get that warm and fuzzy behind that piece. Remember, Courtney Hawkins put up a .804 OPS in his initial debut and was loaded with "tools". I do admit we are getting two quality pitchers as well...so I'm downplaying those aspects, but we need some dynamic position talent as well and I just don't really get that excited about the proposed package (because the arms aren't that great that it is worth ignoring "need"...if that makes sense).

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) From a Sox fans perspective? Maybe But getting what amount to 3 top #50 overall prospects for Quintana would be a nice haul My view is, it doesn't have the high end prospect we'd like. It might also be that I see more bust potential in the key piece to this deal (tucker) vs. what we got in the other deals. I also am probably slightly biased in the sense that I'd like a deal centered around positional talent when it comes to Q.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:33 PM) Asking for Musgrove/Martes/Tucker is very fair from the White Sox point of view That is not an unreasonable price for 4 seasons of a cost controlled #2 starting pitcher After the top few guys I do not like the Astros system that much for a Quintana deal Musgrove is a really solid prospect in his own right, ranking #32 overall at 2016 mid season by baseball america. I really like his plus control. Houston likely views him as a future rotation piece This actually seems a little light, in my opinion.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) Gammons tweeted the ask was Martes, Tucker, Musgrove. Lunhow was quoted leaving the Winter Meetings that they aren't prepared to trade anyone that would be a core to their 2017 production. Might not be the hold up, but it sort of makes some sense. Gotcha. I hadn't seen the Gammons tweet so was wondering if there was legitimacy behind the names tossed or just people throwing names for the sake of names and then attributing it to Lunhow's quote. This makes much more sense...very helpful.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:16 PM) If musgrove is really the sticking point an Reed doesn't have a place in their line up I wouldn't be against Martes/Tucker/Whitley/Reed/Stubbs put the screws to them. Where are people hearing that Musgrove is a sticking point? where are these hypothetical Astros deals even coming from? Not questioning, just curious (since I was offline most of the weekend).

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 01:28 PM) It makes zero sense why Pace has yet to select a QB in two drafts. Even with a late pick, just take a chance on a guy so you have working with the team and maybe you will see something you like. The 1st year I could kind of see why. You aren't sure what you have in Cutler, you try like crazy to move him plus others to get Mariotta, but you can't, and you look at the draft board following it and don't really like anyone (and know you have massive needs everywhere). Last year, was harder to look past, that said, when you think about it again, Cutler was coming off a strong season and I'm sure everyone actually envisioned a higher probability of him being around longer then previous. That said, we did have enough picks where you would have thought we took a QB, but again, I understand trusting your draft board. This year, I can't see any logical scenario where we ignore the position.