Chisoxfn

I'd be ecstatic, because I think it would be the Sox front office taking us in the direction we need to be. That said, I will miss Chris Sale the pitcher and will think back and wonder how we weren't able to put a competitive team around a core of guys that are really fantastic. Not a lot of teams have the type of high production, low contract talent that we have. Just happens to be the areas where we don't have talent, we really don't have talent. Combination of an all star team and a AA/AAA team.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:11 PM) Yeah, I hope they are both light too, but I'm trying to respect what some of the analytics folks are saying in regards to the value of the top tier prospects. The struggle I have is, if we move Sale and Q, that is two elite players we are moving and you have to know that the probability of an elite prospect being anywhere near as good as Q / Sale is just impossible. That means to pull a deal and have a decent probability of success, you need to get quite a bit of quality and quantity in the equation. Obviously for Sale we should get higher quality, but if we don't get enough quantity, then the opportunity for a deal to really make the club better (since it isn't like trading Sale / Q gives us a ton of additional payroll space to work with) becomes a lot less likely. Realistically we have three guys who can bring a kings ransom of talent, with Sale being the most likely to actually get teams to garner up what it takes. Eaton and Q get undervalued to some extent, although Q's track record is so strong that I think his undervalue is still something that ultimately makes sense for the Sox long-term strategy. I don't know that anyone will give up enough to make moving Eaton make sense (and quite frankly, I don't see the Sox front office moving this far, as they could always see where they were and deal Eaton later). Then you have more of your Frazier / Robertson / Melky types who don't fit long-term, but won't bring anything super good, although I would say we should be able to get a top 100 guy plus some solid pieces for Frazier / Robertson. All three of these guys aren't necessarily bad guys to keep around (as they provide good veteran presences for a rebuilding team) who you can then flip closer to the deadline for probably similar value as what you would get today, barring injury (especially Robertson, who I think we'd be selling "low" on now). Frazier, I have no problem moving him and think we can get a package relatively similar (albeit slightly less valuable) then what we gave up. Again, none of those are going to be elite type prospects, although you never know who you might hit on, but we most certainly could get a piece or two that becomes a long term positive contributor to the team. Nate Jones is a wildcard because he has value and a nice contract, but given his health concerns, you could look at moving him and he could again bring in some real talent. The thing that makes us interesting is, despite being so bad, we have some players who can command quite the haul and really quickly stock our cupboards to the point that if we executed some good trades, on paper, we'd have the best farm system in baseball...of course you don't win on paper, but we'd at least have a different type of team to watch and a longer term view of being able to add payroll to get the right parts (and leverage existing talent to potentially fill organizational holes). I truly believe Hahn and Kenny have an opportunity to do things right. People think of the Cubs "tanking", well the Cubs didn't have pieces like Sale / Q / Eaton (plus to a lesser extent Jones / Frazier / Robertson / Abreu / Melky) when they started the tanking whom they could move to significantly boost their farm system. Shark was really the only guy that they had and they clearly took advantage of that (and of course they did get lucky with Arrieta). So for those who say, well they spent more internationally or via free agency, well us having a better starting point to potentially inject the roster with talent is a major plus in the White Sox favor. Not many teams get the advantage of starting a rebuild (if we go down that path) by leveraging the type of youngish, dynamic talent we already have to give you so many young, talented prospects. It is also why it is so darn unfortunate that we screwed up so badly in having enough of a system / smart enough FA moves to actually build a competitive team around them. Unfortunately, we half-assed it for too long to the point that it was impossible to have enough depth as an organization to surround our upper echelon talent with enough "quality" major league players.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 10:41 AM) Yup. And who knows, Jimmy could possibly be the real deal but it's not a risk I'm taking, especially with that asking price. Two 1st, absolutely not.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) I could see them getting a late first round pick plus a future second round pick. I don't see them getting two first rounders. I don't know if they would get the late second and a future first either, but definitely possible.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 01:15 PM) I would expect that most of the established regulars in the union are opposed to it, might be an issue of division within the union. Are players on the 40 man considered part of the MLB union or not? If they are, they probably like the status quo. If they aren't, (well they don't get a vote so not really up to them) but they would prefer a 26th spot to get more guys into the union and more MLB paying full time gigs. Why would the union be against it? This is ultimately another player who gets paid? This also means more likely for an older veteran with a unique role to stay (so it can just as much help a veteran then a young player, imo).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) I think this is basically the wet dream of the majority of us. Let's assume though that it simply isn't possible. Let's say you had to choose between these deals for Sale to the Red Sox and Q to the Dodgers: Sale to the Red Sox: 1) Benintendi/Devers or 2) Benintendi/Kopech/Groome/Swihart Q to the Doders: 1) DeLeon/Bellinger or 2) DeLeon/Barnes/Lux/Puig Which would you choose? I probably chose 2 in both scenarios, however, I don't think I make either of those deals. In scenario two with Boston, I'd want another prospect and in scenario two, given what they are giving, I want to swap Puig with Joc.

I like the added roster spot.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 12:46 PM) Right, and this is where I see the LAD/BOS players being essential, because I like their 1b players a lot as future all stars. It's hard for me to see a trade with Nationals and not get Turner back, but I can't see them trading turner. If Braves truly would give us both of their middle infield prospects +, that's a deal. if it's just one, it's not enough. But you need those "not enough" teams to offer their best prospect to put pressure on BOS/LAD to offer 1(b) prospect + package. I would obviously take Trea Turner or (would never happen) Seager, but it does create questions of how the hell we build depth. I like the Red Sox top prospects better then the Dodgers top prospects (in terms of elite, more because I like the fact that Bos are position players). On the flipside, I like the Dodgers depth better, in the sense that we could deal Q without getting Urias (obviously Seager is not on the board), yet the rest of their top prospects could still be in play and they have a ton of depth, that I think would be a great fit after pulling a high quality package (maybe a little less quantity) from a team like Boston. In general, I don't trade Sale without getting two elite prospects plus quantity. Q I could trade without getting an elite prospect (top 5-10 in all of baseball), but a ton of very good prospects (lots of top 100 guys, including one or two top 50). So when I think of the various teams, Braves / Nats / Red Sox are better fit when it comes to having two "elite" prospects. Dodgers have elite and Urias might be the best of all of them, but I view the secondary elite guy from each of the other teams as stronger and in a Sale trade, I want two elite (or one already existing good ML player) and then still another couple very good prospects. So for example, if Boston goes Moncada / Benitendi, you get Swihart (I think he is a given in any deal with Boston as the final piece) plus one of there other good prospects and then maybe a flier or something. Dream would be Devers / Kopech / plus the two elites from Boston, I just don't see that going that far (but If I'm Kenny / Rick, that is what I'm trying to swing and it is why in the whole form of discussion you are also mentioning names like JBJ and Betts as it is always a negotiation). With Dodgers, I see Puig or Pederson as well as Austin Barnes as guys that I want to have to go with top prospects. For example, if I got Q, I'd be pushing for a package built around non Urias top pitching prospects plus Pederson (priority over Puig, but you might give there and get an Austin Barnes). Again, this are what I'd ideally be looking to get...reality is everything is fluid. But if in two deals you could get Benitendi / Moncada / A couple top pitching prospects (Bos / LAD) / Pederson / Catching Prospect (Barnes or Swihart)....you are talking about a lot of guys who have ceilings and can immediately fill out your roster with long term potential improvements. There will certainly be growing pains, but that is a heck of a lot of talent infused to the everyday lineup. Rotation will obviously be a lot more raw, but you have new prospects coming in plus Rodon / Fulmer / Alec Hansen. Collins as another position prospect in the nearer term as well as Burdi.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 12:51 PM) I dont think the election has changed anything. The discussion about the election results focused on Trump saying he would not accept it. Hillary accepted it, Hillary asked people to move on. Now people have the right to protest, they have the right to be heard. I have personally told many people that protesting on Weds after the election is stupid. The time to be heard was Monday, or anytime in the last year prior to the election. The second line is where the problem is. Who on Obama's staff was "radical." I dont recall Obama appointing anyone close to Bannon, I dont recall Obama appointing anyone who ran a newspaper who gave Obama favorable coverage. Or for that matter, I dont remember Obama not putting his assets in a blind trust, I dont remember Obama not providing his tax returns. So for once, can we just have an actual apples to apples comparison? Or are people just so hell bent in supporting "their" guy, that they dont even care about the truth anymore. Because Im fine in either world, I have no problem sinking down and getting dirty. It really isnt that hard to be the Breitbarts of the world. Don't protest the election, protest the actions. As badger says, if you don't believe in Bannon, get out and have your voice heard...write your representatives, use your voice in a peaceful manner. Get the message out. Protesting the results of the election is a right, but one I don't necessarily agree with because the action happened. Protest what he does and make sure everyone knows what you feel strongly about or what you don't. I don't know if you guys saw it or not, but the day after the election, TNT's NBA crew talked about the game and I thought they did a great job as a whole, especially Ernie Johnson (although I thought they all did a good job). I think it was shared a bit on facebook, although I happened to watch it live and think that they nailed it better then almost any talking head I've seen on CNN / Fox News / etc.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 12:27 PM) The problem is that no one wants to hold themselves accountable anymore. A lot of the same people have posted on this board for a long time, almost everyone of them I have argued with about something at some point. It didnt matter if they were Republican/Democrat, what mattered is if "I" thought they were right or wrong. If a Democrat says something that is wrong, out of line, not supported by the evidence, I dont just turn a blind eye. But what is the point if no one else is willing to do it? Now I know its not every Republican, but when someone like Bannon is picked, EVERYONE should be shouting it down. I understand that trying to convince people about free trade, restriction of movement of labor is not that easy and I even understand that there can be a difference of opinion on policy. But there are people on this board who dont even acknowledge that there is a problem with Bannon, and at some point each party needs to start self policing. Because at the end of the day, we are all judged by the company that we keep, and right now for the Republican's that company is Bannon. I can only speak for myself, but Bannon is a deal breaker. I agree with everything you said.

It is interesting to see all this panic over who is going to be in the Trump administration and all the chaos, when it has barely been two weeks. Obama announced his first cabinet member 3 weeks after winning (I believe) and that was faster then the 3 previous presidents by a lot.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) If we don't get moncada and andrew bentrilln no deal. I have my fingers crossed that Boston gets to that point and a combination of Texas, Houston, Washington, and the Braves drive them there. Dodgers will be in it, but ultimately I think they settle for a lesser package for Q (more in the case that they could get Q without giving up Urias and I do think they have enough other prospects that they could make it happen).

I think Sale will go to Boston and I think Q will go to the Dodgers. I see Q to the Dodgers because they will find a way to get him without giving up Urias (still a strong package) and they are the type of front office who will truly appreciate how good of a pitcher Q is. Sale will go to the Red Sox because when push comes to shove, Dombrowski has the chips and wants to win and knows that Sale will help him do that in the near-term (and he isn't afraid to best other teams offers, when all is set and done).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:33 AM) Hub ARkush was on yesterday and said that the Patriots asking price for Garoppolo is Two #1's plus other stuff. If that is the case, no way.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) I'm thinking Romo may have a Kurt Warner-esque resurgence with another team. Couple injury plagued years and then one magical injury free year where he is Romo again. I think we are headed in the direction of having a really good defense. I've seen flashes despite having a lousy secondary (CB's and safety). We still have some needs, but I've also seen a lot out of our younger defensive players.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:24 AM) No, I don't think continuity is ever that bad. My main gripe with Fox has been his handling of injuries. His game day stuff I knew would be case, and he promoted from within and this time it burned him. But I still think he has eye for coaching talent. Jim Bob Cooter was on our list for QB coach but went to lions. We could have went Gase -> Cooter and been much better off. I'm not at all ready to kick Fox to the curb. I want continuity and Fox has shown he is a more then capable coach with a good eye for talent when it comes to assistants. A lot of games to go but I think we are seeing our defense improve a ton.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:18 AM) I think it's going to happen. He has the EIU connection with Pace. I'd take 2 years of Romo while they develop a young QB. They could still take a young QB high. I think it makes sense because they have another draft and close to $80 million in cap space. A few additions in the secondary and this could be a top 5 unit on defense. They will some win now pieces so starting Romo would be fine. They just need a QB in the pipeline. Some have argued that it's no different than keeping Cutler but I disagree. Romo is better. I've been a Cutler supporter for a long time but it's time for both parties to move on. Yep. I think we will make a push too and I am absolutely okay with it as long as we bring in that developmental QB. I also am absolutely okay giving up a second and a future pick for a Jimmy G or maybe seeing if the Patriots are interested in getting Brady a receiver like Alshon in a package for Jimmy G. I am skeptical about using a top 5 pick on a QB in this years draft (not sure what is out there) but we clearly have an immediate need to make a change. If we thought Tony was healthy, I'd absolutely make that move (but we can't ignore finding a young QB to develop under him).

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:13 AM) Honestly, I read your first sentence and I don't know how that is at all what I said. I'm not calling half the country disgusting. But just because there are some Trump voters that have seen their towns pop decrease and jobs go away does not mean that we should be silent that their vote empowered some very terrible people. I may be incapable of making that point, but I am not calling people inherently evil for voting for trump. But their vote for trump put some very bad people in office, despite very obvious evidence that this was the case. Edit: I read the rest of your post and largely agree. But I think both can be done. I and others can be a watchdog, criticize the clinton campaign, and acknowledge that nearly half the country voted for a person appointing absolute nuts to important positions and not be wrong in any of them. Maybe there's too much focus on point 3, it's week 2. Gotcha, I might have read it different, but I agree with what your rephrase above.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) The idea that after 8 years "change" is going to be a winning recipe is absolutely true. There is a reason we have only seen the incumbent party win after 8 years of rule from previous president 3 times in last 100 years. It is obvious Clinton was a bad candidate for Change message. But that "change" was the recipe for success among this man that was so clearly corrupt beyond Clinton, ill-prepared, ill-tempered, unbothered, and fomenting racism, xenophobia and bigotry for so many people doesn't absolve them from the responsibility of that decision. Are the very vocal, very terrible people the majority of those who voted for trump? No. But they are a much bigger and powerful group than they would be with any other Repub president. They are becoming cabinet officials. Was this obvious prior to his election. YES. So should we human shield all of the people who voted trump by saying they aren't horrible people? I guess I just don't care. Whether they just wanted to vote against clinton or are a white nationalist voting for trump, they voted for very powerful positions to go to very horrible people. And we all pay. Do I want their votes again? Yes. But the 5 million americans who didn't vote may be a better place to start. If you want to just go and call half of the country disgusting, go right ahead, but lets see what good that does solving any problems in our country. It makes you no different then the other side. Hillary should have spent more time attacking the issues and talking about how she was going to drive change and make the country better. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm not going to call everyone who voted for Trump disgusting (misguided, absolutely), but deep down, I hope somehow they weren't so wrong and Trump ends up being a fantastic president. If he doesn't, then people should use their voice and let it be heard so that everyone understands why his policies are wrong and what he is doing is wrong. But for all those people protesting who didn't cast a vote, I hope they all learn a lesson and cast a vote in the future. And when you say they voted for very powerful positions to go to very horrible people, lets not forget that there was a lot of people who didn't think all that highly of Clinton and could even have gone as far as calling her pretty horrible. So in many people's eyes it was picking the less horrible and some people viewed that as being Trump, others saw it as Clinton, others clearly didn't vote.

Who is ready for the Bears to sign Tony Romo in the offseason?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) I spent the entire election say that a large part of the country just wanted something different. I think the obvious take away is that neither party gave the electorate exactly what they wanted, and that if either party had nominated even a slightly more palatable candidate to the middle of America, they would have trounced the other party in this election. The people gave a pretty clear message in this election, both who they voted for, and with how many people stayed home. Hopefully both parties are listening. And posts like Balta's would make me think that one side doesn't get it and on the republican side, this whole mandate also would lead me to believe they largely don't get it. Will be very interesting to see what happens these next couple of years. I hope the actual stuff people push through largely aligns to things that a majority of the country believes make sense. On healthcare Trump seems to have taken a step to fall that way (but none of us know for sure) and similarly on potentially on things like gay marriage. That said, there are other things that are still way out there / open.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 08:49 AM) If it were Rubio, Kasich or Jeb in Trump's spot, I'd agree. But people condoned bigotry with their votes this election, there's no real way around that. If it were any of those three candidates, you wouldn't have had any of these discussions anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 08:05 PM) This is why they got elected, at least as much as the electoral college. They told people it's ok to be bigots and that excited the Republican base. This is his act. This thought is dangerous. It is what Hillary Clinton leveraged and it didn't work. If people believe that is why they got elected, then they are missing the reality of the situation. The election happened because of a combination of things, the bulk of which people wanted serious change. They wanted a change candidate and Trump was who represented the people most in want of change (and even then he got less votes than McCain and Romney). Trump also talked to more people in the rest belt area who have had things get worse over the last 8 years and who wanted a change. Now did those people ignore certain things Donald said / did, absolutely, but to lump in and just assume that everyone who cast there vote for Trump feels the way that you seem to think is just ridiculous and does not solve anything. You saw what good those type of statements did Hillary (calling half of the voting population deplorables doesn't help things). The fact of the matter is everyone lost in this election, but we really lost if the actual politicians don't recognize that the people are fed up and do want change. They want people in the government to work together to come up with things that in general the people want, that will make there lives better. Case closed that a lot of people didn't feel that happened. Bill Clinton himself has been highlighted talking about a lot of these very same things.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) Steve Bannon sees 20% of silicon valley ceo's being asian, mentally freaks out and interprets this as 75%, winds up saying that having large numbers of asians in those roles is bad for civic society. Remember folks, it's not just the muslims, brown people, blacks, and jews. They'll get down the list to hating you personally eventually. Under no circumstances, should Bannon be associated with the White house. Trump needs to get his act together. The nationalist sentiments coming from the campaign is always what terrified me the most about Trump.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 11:12 AM) Yeah it depends on location for sure. I saw if you took out the poorest 20% and the richest 20% you get a range for middle class from 47k-140k Damn...that has to be right cause it fits pretty squarely in my range. Feels about right.