Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Tony @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 10:34 AM) If I'm running things, I put an open for business sign on my door, and explore options. My gut tells me no one is going to give me the right package for Sale or Q, so I turn my focus on trading Fraizer-Robertson-Melky and see what I can do. In the off-season and at the Winter Meetings is where I really try and sell Sale and Q. The problem is of course in reality, the White Sox front office believes the fan base needs to hear they are "in it to win it" every year, yet we all know that isn't even close to being true. This is the approach I go with. I also would dangle Abreu but it might be in the clubs best interest to see if he has a stronger second half and than consider moving him (or keeping him because he can still hit). I do think the focus should be on the three guys you mentioned, plus Abreu. I also would look at Miguel Gonzalez and Shields and obviously dangle Jones and Duke. I don't think anyone is going to blow us away for Sale / Q (or give what it would take for Sox to move him) so they wait until the off-season to potentially move the additional pieces (or maybe decide they are going to wait another year and continue to develop guys from within and build around the rotation).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:53 AM) Jason - Just from my point of view, I agree that we don't need to firesale ALL of our young talent, but I do think you market all of them and see if you get a great return for one. If you just trade the old vet on an expiring contract, you'll get some single-a lottery tickets. Trading 1 of our big pieces gives us a chance to really start building a wave of young talent to come up in 2 years. The crappy thing about 2013 is we really were at end of road with a lot of our talent. Peavy was an obvious piece to trade but was old and not an elite pitcher. We should have traded Alexei though I loved every game he played here. The phillies, meanwhile, damn near rebuilt their farm in one year with one trade. I already said, everyone should be on the market, with very limited exceptions, but their are certain people who I am more likely to take best available offer vs. others who if I don't get at least X, I'm not making the deal. You don't have to do it all by the end of this month, although there are some guys who we absolutely should move, imo, by the end of the month (if the club is intending to sell).

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) If the plan is to rebuild, everyone is for sale in my world. If the whole team is sold and bad, you might as well move Eaton. It isn't like the plan is to be awful for 5 years. I presume if they do this, they will be looking at either major league players today and / or guys at higher levels who can contribute near term. You could do this without moving some of your big pieces to ensure you can actually be good. Eaton is still around for a while as are others. This doesn't have to be a get rid of everyone and just entirely start over, in fact, I don't know if that is what I'd propose to do. You have to pick and choose and move guys who you think you get enough absolute value for to make it worth your while. If someone makes a strong offer for Eaton, great, but Eaton is really really good, so you don't just trade for the sake of trading and Eaton absolutely can be a cornerstone guy (it isn't easy to find guys like that). Unfortunately, the Sox haven't been able to develop the non-cornerstone people who can be quality, overall players. They have quite a few really really good players but also quite a few really really lousy players.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) Trading Eaton? Absolutely not. On the other hand, you'd be trading him at peak value, but I agree, given our biggest issue is a lack of quality position players, I have a hard time moving Eaton.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) http://www.todaysknuckleball.com/al/chicag...dering-selling/ Says sox getting calls on Robertson, eaton and others Robertson seems like a no-brainer to move, imo.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) It was Q for Seager that he was talking about To be honest, I don't think the Dodgers make that deal. I think Sale is the easier guy to get fair value for (which is an absurd amount of talent too) as I think with Q, he is just in general underappreciated.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:17 AM) Seems like a fair trade straight up, to be honest I can't trade Sale straight up for anyone in the game. If we move Sale, it has to be to get multiple pieces, otherwise I don't see how the deal puts us in any better spot long term. If I were going to move him, I presume a package could be built around Urias, Pederson, Jose Deleon, and at least another interesting piece (potentially Austin Barnes or something along those lines). If I was asking for Seager it would be Seager and Pederson for Sale that I'd want and even than I struggle (and I also know the Dodgers wouldn't make that deal either). By the way, in any of these deals, their is a lot of bust risk, especially given how good Chris Sale is. But if I'm making this deal, I'm asking for quite a few guys that I think can be everyday players and who have upside to be potential all stars. I don't know that you will get anyone who has potential upside to be as good as Chris Sale currently is (and assuming so is just absurd).

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 09:02 AM) Sources continue expressing doubt #WhiteSox will move Sale or Quintana. That said, #Dodgers have pieces to make overwhelming offer. @MLB https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/756143995336597505 Kershaw may be needing surgery and possibly wont be back this year. If I trade Sale or Q, Dodgers are on my short list of teams who have the talent. I do think we should be looking at moving Abreu, Frazier, Robertson, Gonzalez (I am sure someone would have interest in him give how he has pitched), Duke, and Melky. Long-term they aren't in the plans, imo, and for most of them there is some value you should get. One could argue whether you want to trade low on some of the names mentioned. Than you have guys like Lawrie, who I could move, but it isn't like he's overly pricey, etc. Nate Jones is another guy you could move, but he's signed to an affordable deal and could fit into the longer term strategy. I also view this as you don't have to move Sale / Q or you could as part of the retool. Shields could also be moved as well (4 straight quality starts), but his contract isn't a huge hinderance. The hard part is, who do you move now vs. who do you move in the off-season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 20, 2016 -> 03:11 PM) Does anyone have any idea how much cash teams get for a player of Carroll's ilk? I believe it is up to 50K. The below doesn't exactly apply, but there are a couple other spots which seem to get to a typical value of $50K for guys on the 40 man roster. 5. An Article XX-B MLB free-agent who signs a Major League contract after 11:59 PM (Eastern) on the 5th day after the final game of the World Series has an automatic "no trade" right through June 15th. The player can waive this right, but if he does he can be traded only for cash and/or player contracts with a maximum aggregate value of $50,000. Note that an Article XX-B MLB free-agent who signs a minor league contract after 11:59 PM (Eastern) on the 5th day after the final game of the World Series does NOT receive an automatic "no trade" right, even if the player is later added to the club's MLB Reserve List (40-man roster).

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 05:03 PM) I liked the way it depicted the jail/prison sequences. Gritty. I wonder if they're going to entertain other specific suspects, or stick to the gray of generally wondering whether it was Nasir at all. Just watched the first episode last night...you guys undersold it. It was freaking awesome.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 20, 2016 -> 07:18 AM) Is this the same writers as Eastbound and Down? I'll have to check this out. Has to be. The feel is very similar. You basically took him out of being a pitcher and into being a vice president (maybe less raunchy). I stumbled upon one episode part way in and agreed it was pretty funny, with some good potential.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 20, 2016 -> 06:22 AM) I dont know why, but I love Below Deck Med Is it going on right now? It is about the only reality show I can watch these days (gotten tired of them), but the characters on below deck tend to crack my wife and I up (and I have some extra appreciation for it since they are actually working hard in the midst of it all). Note: I forgot Deadliest catch, which I'll watch anytime I'm on a flight.

Nate Silver did some analysis on the NBA draft picks and somehow projected Valentine as like the 3rd or 4th best player in terms of value over the next 5 years (I think it was 5 years). No idea what basis went into it, but thought I'd point it out. Simmons and Dunn were #1 / #2.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 06:43 AM) Anyone buying into the Blake Griffin for Niko and Taj rumors? I love Blake, but this team needs the spacing Niko brings. Seriously....we are going to not acquire Blake cause of spacing issues. I don't know what the rumors are and I see zero reason why the Clips would do this, but if their is a legit way to get Blake for a package involving Taj and Niko, it would have been done yesterday. I don't even know what sort of package we could put together that would work for the Clips. Maybe if we signed Doc's kid and than could trade him back, but that is the only way

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 18, 2016 -> 02:02 PM) I don't see why. They're still not a great team. They have a bunch of assets, but unless he's willing to commit long term, Boston won't use them. Are they closer than a team like LA? Sure, but they also aren't in LA, which is where Westbrook wants to be. If Boston can get him by giving up this years top pick plus their future pick and one player, I can absolutely see why they do it as they are trying to contend now and after getting Horford they are the 2nd best team in the East, imo. The addition of Westbrook would definitely make them more interesting as well. On an unrelated note, I presume any team that gets Rus is going to make him sign an extension or they won't do the deal.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2016 -> 01:17 PM) Honestly me neither. Boston Lakers. Team like Utah could pony up but doubt they could keep him. Won't be the Lakers. For the Lakers to do it, they are giving up Ingram/Russell and possibly Randle as well (maybe they keep Clarkson). At that point, I don't know what good that Lakers team even is. Their whole plan should be to surround its young players with other stars to have a good team. If all you have is Clarskon and Westbrook, you are going to be really brutal.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 18, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) The internets are trading Westbrook to just about every team in the NBA the past couple of days. Its so funny to read the comments section for these made up articles as if its a real possibility for their team. Honestly, I can't see a team other than Boston landing him in a trade. I just don't see any other team giving up as much as it would take to get him, when they can sign him as a FA. I suppose the exception would be some form of a smaller market team who could potentially land him (who wouldn't otherwise be able to sign him in FA) or someone like the Clippers who have their own potentially expiring free agents they could dangle.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 12:25 PM) Now that Trump picked a chump, you just know Hillary is dying to pick a woman to be her running mate. I'm sure she's just a tad bit torn however. She's probably not wanting to push her luck going with an all female ticket. My prediction is she'll do so, however. She knows Trump is weak and has no chance in hell of beating her. I'm sure she'd much rather have a female pal in Washington to shoot the breeze with on a daily basis the next eight years rather than some gruff man. My guess is she's dying to pull the trigger and name a fellow female but a tad scared SOME members of the public might freak out and be afraid of two women in charge. Is Warren on the record saying she won't accept a Veep bid? This officially confirmed the fact that you are sexist. You assume a women is going to pick another women because they'll hypothetically get along more and than pose it as men being gruff, etc. Ridiculous.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 04:46 AM) Spacing is indeed an issue with this team in NBA 2k16. I kind of like the fact that we are going to be a nasty team. We have some pretty "tough" players. I realize it isn't the modern NBA, but lets be clear about one thing, the Warriors were really the team that changed that and its been all of two years. You can still win, other ways, and play a more physical tough game. Now you are going to need to have guys that can get to the line to do that, and both Wade and Buckets can do that. It is definitely a different style, but doesn't mean you can't win being different.

Event is free to attend and the appetizers are complimentary. They have specially priced beers at the event (if you so choose). Matt or Dan can add more specifics or correct me if I'm mistaken.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 04:36 PM) So any parents in here want to inform about how their kids' friends have been raised. Anybody have any kids 20 to 30? What is coming out of their mouths in regard to college and the working world? Do they assume they are going to make big bucks? Do they care either way? And commitment that we've read about. I was in more than 10 weddings for sure between 22 and 30. Are kids getting married? Give me an insight into what you are seeing in your world about Millenials and Xers at home and work please. Greg - I am 32 and a millenial, have a job (am in mid to upper management for a large financial institution), am married (with two kids). Vast majority of my friends are married, with about half having kids / in-process of having kids, and most with some form of decent jobs in the grand scheme of things (all doing a variety of different things in their careers and in most cases, people I have known since middle-school / high-school as my colleagues I met at work would skew it more in the direction of good jobs, etc). Bottom line....22 year olds don't get married as much and have kids anyway these days (you go to school, don't start careers to later because of it, etc). Its just part of life and to have financial security it takes a bit more time to get independent, etc. I don't think a lot has really changed and a bunch of people hang onto one measly stat and go crazy over it (and such stat may not actually mean anything). What a shock...most 18 year olds don't have kids and / or are married...I can use that data to say look, millenials aren't getting married (no...18 year olds aren't getting married and that is largely a consistent trend over the past 30 years).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) Re: the phone/electronic topic, i'm not opposed to it, and it has nothing to do with me not understanding technology, but i'd rather my son never looked at a phone or tablet except to watching a tv show or movie. My 4 year old becomes a monster when I try to take the thing away. I'd prefer that he go play outside and explore bugs or something than sit and play subway surfer for an hour. I don't necessarily buy the "tv rots your brain" theory my parents used to throw around, but I'm sure there's SOMETHING to that. If anything it just makes kids more anti-social, even if we are becoming a more "internet-social" world. I'd rather my kid be the minority there and actually learn some people skills since most of his peers won't have that in 15-20 years. It is proven that technology, especially at young ages, does have direct impacts on children's attention spans and moods. When you think about it, it kind of makes sense. I'm a huge believer in minimal screen time, given my kids current age and allowing them to be creative and to really learn the real skills associated with "concentration" and basic things vs. the sensory overload that comes with a lot of the screen stuff. That said, there are also benefits of the tech, whether it is leveraging it to further educate or leveraging it for other avenues. And yes, somewhere in there, you should be able to leverage it for entertainment.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) Wow, that's some terrible luck. I think my card has been compromised once, but I always seem to be a possible victim on those big store hacks. Anyone spending lots of money on Prime Day? So far my wife and I have bought some odds and ends, but most of the deals are Amazon specific devices (have enough of them) or crap we don't need. The real question is where the heck does lost spend his money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2016 -> 03:03 PM) What do we consider the Rangers and the Giants? Going back to 2010 the Rangers payroll was the bottom of the league, the Giants was top 10 but behind the White Sox. What do we consider the Cardinals? Rangers & Giants are big market teams, however, I understand your point, that they were able to contend despite having payroll's below that of the White Sox.

Send.