Chisoxfn

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.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 01:20 PM) I kinda want Q to go to the NL because I'm certain he'd be a Cy Young winner when his innings are limited and he gets even fewer legit batters per lineup. Would Q winning a Cy Young on the Cubs kill me? It's possible. Clayton Kershaw, one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history, says hello. When healthy, the Cy Young is pretty much his and his alone, imo.

Right move...awful way they have handled everything though.

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 07:32 AM) Assuming the Sox continue trading our vets, we could have a very low payroll the next couple of years. The low payroll got me thinking of another creative way to acquire talent. Salary dumps are not necessarily new, though they would be to the Sox as usually we receive money in deals not the other way around. I read some articles discussing the finer points on high spending penalties in the new CBA. They can be significant. I also read about the Dodgers high debt to cash flow which they MUST comply with and it got me thinking. For the Dodgers, who still want to spend on Turner and Jansen, they are multi year offenders of being over the cap. Counting international signing penalties, if they sign more players it may be an effective 100% tax. They have three awful contracts... Eithier owed $20 million (could cost them $40 with tax) Kazmir owed two years at over $35 (cost them $70) McCarthy owed two years at over $22(cost them $44) Because of the debt service rules and even in general, if you start talking about 40 million it matters. Even if the Dodgers kicked in some cash in a deal, every dollar we pay they save two. So would they do a lopsided trade where we get prospects in return for their true relief being dollars? Remember it cost the Red Sox over $60 million to acquire Moncada. Depending on the money we pay it would be another way to get talent. I realize it is unlikely as we have never been a spending team but if something happens with the Dodgers and anyone, if these players are involved this may be why the deal looks like a Dodger loss. Great post and I like this idea. It also is a way to take on guys and see if you could turn around and then spin them elsewhere (after eating a chunk of their contract). Interesting idea, especially because of the added money impacting those luxury tax teams. You do have to be careful though, because you don't want to take on a player, who wouldn't fit in with the clubhouse, as you want to have the right veterans around the young players. We do have to be careful though, because you need to make sure you don't take on too much appetite when it comes to this and hinder ability to make other moves (whether your team speeds up or a player you like is available, but might cost a bit salary wise).

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) I thought I heard Cardinals. They seem like a good fit for Frazier.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 09:51 AM) Rumors going around today that Bill Polian is looking to get back in a FO position, and the Bears are reportedly interested in the name of restructuring and possibly removing Phillips from football decision power (ie. Polian takes on some sort of president of football ops type job) Rex Ryan might also be getting the ax today I am okay with this, but a little concerned too. Seems so ass backwards to be doing this now, especially because I generally like Ryan Pace and think he's done a good job adding talent to this team. When I look at our most recent draft, I smile a lot (Floyd / Whitehair / Howard all look like players to me).

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) So the Dodgers wanted to keep Hill, Jansen and Turner and it looks like they'll do just that. You think they decide to get a little aggressive now that they've accomplished their goals? Maybe jump into the Quintana derby? Just pure speculation by me but bringing back the same team as last year while the Cubs and Nationals get better doesn't seem like a recipe for breaking through and winning the pennant. Given how much money they spent on the other see, I could see where they look at Q and his price and value it more. That said, Friedman isn't one with a reputation of being willing to make an aggressive pay (and that is what it will take to get Q, imo).

Nats & Marlins are two potential destinations (presumed since both teams were in on some other closers). Who else has been looking at closers or could be an option? I do think when it comes to Robertson, you don't have to move him now, and his value could be higher at the deadline (presuming he proves he's healthy).

Jensen reportedly going to be going back to the Dodgers (per Rosenthal). One less suitor for Robertson.

Who else was in on Turner? We know the Nats and Marlins were in on Jensen, so have an idea of other teams who might be interested in Robertson's services, but I have a harder time knowing when it comes to Frazier.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 05:05 AM) Solid mid-season finale of The Walking Dead last night. The entire season so far has been very good, and it looks like the second half is setting up to be action-packed. Completely agree.

Are there any recent rumors?

Truly fantastic interview. So informative.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 06:56 AM) Watch some team give Barkley a big deal. He looks like he could be a solid back up. You are probably in pretty good shape if he is your back up or third string. He is a restricted FA so I think it is pretty likely he is back on the Bears.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 05:53 AM) At this point the Bears probably want to trade down to accumulate picks I like that strategy. Seems like the top defensive guys on the board will be gone and you don't have a great LT sitting there. Who knows though...a lot can happen between now and the draft.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 03:56 PM) The Bears absolutely need to do something at QB. Either a high draft pick or a trade for a short term veteran, or perhaps even both. The fact that this administration hasn't even tried, despite knowing the clock on Cutler would potentially have him cut after this year, is inexcusable. At least spend a 3rd round pick and see if you find a Dak Prescott. I agree we should do something, but Barkley is playing himself into the job. I don't think I'd be taking any of these guys at the top of the 1st round (of the available QB's). Doesn't mean I don't take a QB later (or move down to get one). Will be closely watching to see how Barkley continues to do, especially now that the league has three weeks of film on him.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) Question for the board. What if Houston caved in and said they would trade Bregman but the trade would be Bregman for Q straight up. Would ya do it? Absolutely not.