Chisoxfn

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) Jim Harbaugh isnt going anywhere any time soon. He makes more annually than any NFL coach. He also has no boss. I'd also rather have John as a coach. I think there is a real possibility he ends up with the Rams. That said, I'd be more convinced in a year or two, especially if he wins a National Title at Michigan. At some point, Harbaugh is coming back to the NFL.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) I dont think Harbaugh would leave the Ravens to come to the Bears though. You'd have to look at someone that wants to move up from a position that isnt a highly paid HC I was referring to the guy up in Michigan. Agree with you on Harbaugh leaving Ravens. I can't be hiring a head coach and not put Harbaugh at the top of my list. Rams are going to throw everything his way. It will be interesting to see if he takes them up on there offer. If he believes in Goff, it is a pretty attractive job (it also is for a McDaniels or Shanny as well) as they will have lots of resources, need help at oline/wideout, but have a quality defense (despite just getting whipped) and will have fantastic resources heading into a new stadium, etc. Key of course is developing Goff.

So I'm pretty much fully on board with the, if it isn't Fox, hire a guy that we think is an offensive genius and let him pick our next QB (McDaniels / Shanny are at the very top of my list). Obviously, my first go round would be to hand the keys to the kingdom to Harbaugh (whom I love...but I know that isn't happening and as I've said multiple times, I haven't seen any reason to kick Pace to the curb yet).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) Whatever happened to the black dude on the bridge? He never died on screen. Could it be him? I've debated him, one of the new communities that is to come, as well as it being the guy....don't think it is one of the girls, although it very well could be. Just didn't look like a girls boot. Part of me assumes it is Dwight and he is going to turn again Negan. I really do think that mid-season finale brought the whole first half of the story together. In isolation, Negan was so unlikeable, etc, and it was just so dark...but you kind of had to bring all the characters to the low to get to the point we are now...if you did anything else, it would have been so darn anticlimatic. They even found a way to get everyone to dislike Negan a little less in that final episode. Part of I think the problem with TWD is, when you watch it week to week vs. stream a whole season, it comes off different. Week to week, I think there are more of the "pacing" concerns vs. a show that people could stream 3 episodes at once. It is one of the beauties of the netflix/amazon's of the world with their shows, where you can just totally flow through a season and see it all for what it was meant to be (that said...maybe sometimes the longer pauses are beneficial because it adds to the drama, etc).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) Kevin Millar is pretty much the resident goofball at MLBN but when he wants to get serious, he is interesting. He was talking about his free agency, first when he signed with Boston, and then when he signed with Baltimore. He said everything was OK when he hadn't signed by the holidays, but once the new year started panic starts setting in. He wound up signing in February, and was pretty nervous he wasn't going to have a home. I think when he signed with Boston he actually was close to going to Japan. Good info and I can see why....typically we don't see a lot of moves made as you get later in the year. Teams use resources, etc. The fact that so little has happened so far is just so stinking odd. Do we see ML teams panic that they haven't addressed needs and thus up their offer to acceptable levels for Q? FA wise, I would think a lot of players would be nervous as they just in general would like to have an idea of where they are, what is going to happen. Such a weird weird year. We do know that the market for Robertson is pretty much established at this point (no other options via FA and DRob is probably the most proven guy on the block). Frazier's market is likely set as well (with Turner now off the market). And with Q, it is more the matter of what team ultimately decides / views him as an ace / co-ace. If teams don't view him as that, I don't know that we ultimately get the price we want.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) I'm not saying it's an incorrect assessment, I'm saying it's verbally jacking off. None of us know what Dak would look like with the Bears either. While I'm completely unimpressed with our offense, there are plenty of things to look at and kind of go, when you look at what we have on paper, there are reasons to be encouraged with Loggains. Whether it is the development of Howard or just the fact that we haven't been embarassed despite all the changes at the QB position and wideout (by and large I refer to this). Yes, our offense has not been very good from a PPG perspective, etc, but I think if we told people about all the various injuries and who we would have starting at QB / Wideout / etc, we'd be thinking our offense would be even worse. What sucks the most is, it almost becomes a wasted year in the sense of evaluating Loggains and his long-term success profile because you don't know how to adequately baseline him. At least from an outside view it is hard.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:03 PM) I have read with texting and email and cellphones, the Winter Meetings are more show that substance as far as trade talk. It is needed for the job fair, and other thinks, but modern technology has made them obsolete for trades and signings, although it seems some things actually happen there. If Hahn didn't trade Sale and Eaton, this years Meetings would have been a bore for everyone. The whole offseason has been a bore. Usually the winter meetings are a time when you cement a lot of trade talks (plus hit a lot of items as it relates to free agent moves / meetings with agents. Everything centralized leads to just more robust talking, but agree, there are all the other things happening too. Owners meetings a few weeks prior are a precursor to a lot of things. Everything this year has been different due to the CBA overhang and the historically bad free agent class. That said, as I just said in another thread, my prediction is we'll see the pace pick up leading into next week, with the holidays serving as a bit of an artificial deadline.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:00 PM) It was last friday, just after the meetings. The worst part about the Winter Meetings ending every year is there are no more deadlines. Remember that the Cespedes saga lasted for WEEKS, and Alex Gordon hadn't signed for another 3 weeks from now. Pretty stale. That said, everything got a later start. I think you do have some more deadlines as we approach the holidays though, as front offices tend to do a bit of a slow down for family type matters which again, creates some urgency / artificial deadlines to wrap things up. The pace of moves have been about the slowest I can ever remember and post winter meetings, it isn't unusual for a bit of a slowdown as teams regroup, but when I factor in the overall context of so few moves (and the poor FA class), it is interesting that we haven't seen a bit more pace this week. I do expect next week to be a very busy week.

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).