Chisoxfn

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:00 AM) Colorado would probably be more agreeable to a Danks/CarGo swap than we think. They'd love to save $20 million. I don't know if the Rockies do that due to perception. If I'm Sox, I'd consider it, but you might just add another guy who is paid more then he's worth (injured / unproductive). I presume Rockies would rather send some cash along and get an actual pitching prospect, etc, or would just prefer to keep him and see if he can have a big 2nd half and thus be more moveable in the off-season. I kind of think I'm staying away from CarGo unless we get some major package in our favor. While upside is their, major downside seems to exist as well and I'd rather stay away from that.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:57 AM) Trading Q for Puig would certainly get some of the burden off Garcia. Trading Shark would never net a return like this. If the Sox could resign Shark and get Puig for Q, you still have a formidable pitching staff. Sale, Shark, Rodon, Johnson, Fulmer? Maybe sign a FA for one year to give Fulmer time. I agree with the above and would be a huge proponent of it.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) I think it's important to note that it's the Dodgers that are desperate for pitching and to shed Puig's contract. By no means are the Sox desperate to move Q which gives them the upper hand in any trade talks involving Q. Again, why would the Sox want a proven head case who's numbers are not all that impressive this year. Also keep in mind who Spiegel works for, The Score. Let's say the Sox are interested in Puig. Due to both the Sox and Dodgers needing to move an outfielder, its likely a third team needs to be brought into the mix in order for it to happen. Not that it could not happen, just adds to the difficulty of the trade. Again, Puig has a s*** attitude and the Dodgers can keep it. If the Dodgers really are desperate to move Puig then trade talks begin with Puig for Samardzija and go from there. No chance I would trade Q for that head case. Just my opinion though. Yasiel Puig's career OPS+ would be 3rd best in White Sox franchise history (behind only Frank Thomas & Shoeless Joe Jackson). Are you kidding me with his attitude. Last year he put up a 140 OPS+. Also, while Dodgers want pitching, I don't know if they are desperate for it. I'd say Sox are more desperate for positional talent then Dodgers are for pitching. They do have Grienke and Kershaw a top of their rotation. And while the Dodgers might be dangling Puig, lets not act like his contract is a disaster. He is signed to an extremely affordable deal (although he probably will opt out and take arbitration a few times). Still, he's under team control until 2020.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) If we could send them John Danks, I'd think about it. I'd think about a pitching prospect and Melky. To your point I'd move danks but I doubt they'd do that. Without us giving them a contract though I can't see a match. His contract doesn't match his production (especially when adjusting for health).

Lip...take note. If the Sox don't pull the trigger on Puig (and we find out we turned down the offer), he could be a guy you will be writing about in a version of this 15-20 years from now. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yasiel-puigs-historic-start/

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:43 AM) A lot of people don't get along with Puig. No. Puig is a good player, but not great. Quintana for Puig is a "fair" trade, but not one I would do. Puig's production has declined each season. Certainly wouldn't throw Avi in there. Put a list together of guys at age 22 and 23 respectively, put up OPS+ > 140 in both seasons (159 & 143, repectively). The below is a lil bit dated article, but look at the names on that list. If we turn down the shot at Q, Lip is going to be writing an article about how one of the greatest players in baseball history could have been a White Sox. The upside of a Q for Puig package (maybe Sox give up a guy on their side or Dodgers add a name, but primary package being these 2) is going to be with the White Sox, imo. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yasiel-puigs-historic-start/

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:37 AM) You'd be willing to dangle Anderson for SEager? Like...top five prospect in all of baseball seager? I mean, yeah of course you would but we couldn't even get Seager for Q straight up. I don't know about that. And I said that would be my starting price. Didn't say we would get him and the more I think about it, I'd actually be willing to give on the other side to get Puig. And I think their is potential Dodgers would give up Seager (or Urias) for Q. I just don't know that I could do that if I'm the Sox. The 1 for 1 upside isn't that great vs. the potential downside (Seager or U bust and we ended up losing a well above average cost controlled player). It is why if I'm moving any of our top cost controlled pitchers for a prospect, I'd need multiple top prospects back. Q is proven, cheap and cost controlled...I'm not trading him for someone who is all of those things except proven with the potential upside maybe being a tick better then Q. Puig's upside is game changing star. I'll trade Q for that. In fact, for 2 years, he was right behind Trout (and maybe ahead of Harper) when it came to the games most exciting young players.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) As long as this thread is talking about trading Q for an outfielder, why not Q for Cargo? I would rather have Cargo than that head case from LA. Bigger contract and while both are injury prone, Cargo is more injury prone. It would be, in my opinion, insane to trade Q for CarGo. CarGo hasn't even put up a 100 OPS+ last year or this year and only played in half the games last year. Puig makes less money. Puig isn't a FA until 2020 (vs. Cargo in 2018), is far younger, and has put up OPS+ of 159, 143, and 119 in past 3 seasons. You don't like the downward trend but the #'s are still very strong and the downward trend sample size is still small for this year (as the 143 from last year was still by all standards, exceptional). I think when push comes to shove, Puig is a generational type talent. Headcase, yes, but change of scenery would do well as would potentially surrounding him with some mature Cuban players. I realize all the talk about Puig / Abreu and whether they like each other or not, but I could see a lot of scenario's where Puig coming here is a major boom for him. More, I think about it, when I consider marketing upside and other aspects, while I think baseball wise (including contract) Q is more valuable than Puig, given our needs (and factoring in marketing aspects), I'd probably give up something else to get Puig. Puig has the chance to be one of the better players in baseball history. His 1st two years at his respective age put him in very rare air. The fact that he is even on the block is related to maturity issues (which could blow up in our face) and Dodgers have glut in that respective area. You think about 30 years from now, is it likely that a revisionist history article is talking about the Sox and how they could have had HOF Yasiel Puig for Jose Quintana. I find it less likely that their is an article about Q in the hall and Puig being the bust and how different it would have been had the Sox not made the move. Bottom line, this is a potential franchise changing move and would fill a major need for athleticism, excitement, and quite frankly a heck of a bat (who has all the defensive tools in the world...although he clearly has some fundamental issues). If there was 1 player on my wish list where we have a remote shot, Puig is that guy. He is the type of baseball player people go to watch. He is exciting (good and bad) and can do something you've never seen before (good & bad) in any at bat or really on any play.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:34 AM) Puig for Shark, Micah Johnson, and Montas? Too much? I am not trading Johnson and Dodgers would have no interest in Johnson. I'd trade Puig for Shark. Not sure if Dodgers do. They would be looking at Shark / Grienke as FA and it seems like the pitchers they are targeting are signed. That said, if It meant giving up Montas and Shark for Puig, I'd be willing. I'd be willing to move Shark, a position prospect (or a reliever), and Avi for Puig as well. Don't think Dodgers do it.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:33 AM) Does it make me a homer that I think the Dodgers would have to throw something in besides Puig? Puig is making more than Quintana over the next 3 years, then throw in the two beneficial team options in Q's deal, Puig's slumping numbers without the benefit of a silly high BABIP, LAD's need to clear away outfielders... I think the Sox say no. Yeah, it is why I said I'd want more (I'd be willing to give up more to make it happen to) but I'd want one of the Dodgers top 50 prospects.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I say no. Why would the Dodgers want Avi when they have too many outfielders as is? From a Dodgers POV, the point in moving Puig is to get rid of his s***ty egocentric childish attitude while while trading away from a position they already have too many players for. I would not trade Q straight up for that head case not to mention Puig's numbers are not all that impressive this year. Pass. Dodgers trade is focused on them adding pitching. If you moved Avi, he wouldn't have much value to LA, unless they wanted to have some depth back for Puig (which they very well might). It isn't like they are going to hand every at bat to Ethier (although they have Van Slyke who is solid and could easily handle some more AB's as well). Q is the key piece and I think when push comes to shove, you have to widely consider the move (although I'd have to look into hte detalis of Puig's contract and realistically what his cost would be during next few years. Adding Puig does mean you need to move at least one of Melky / LaRoche / Avi. I'd probably move LaRoche first, as Avi / Melky still have a bit more value in the sense that they can play multiple positions. Would also allow you to save some money. However, I'd also think about moving Avi and a Tim Anderson in a trade to a team to get a top prospect we like (as a 3rd team to help facilitate a prospect move).

Dodgers badly want to move Puig to add a pitcher and give them protection for Grienke walking. Given surplus value in Q, I think the base package make sense, but If I am Rick, I want something else in addition. I'm willing to dangle Anderson if we get Seager back (upgrade of prospects). I'd also be willing to include Avisail or some bullpen pieces as well to help get another more valuable prospect in return. I do think if we got a young outfielder, Puig would be one that made a lot of sense.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 09:18 AM) I'll echo this. We have a Bosch dishwasher, it's fantastic. We only run it on the "Eco" cycle, which runs half as long and has always gotten everything clean. No need for other settings in that case! Also Bosch is just a fantastic company, virtually all their profits (that aren't plowed back) go into a trust that does charitable and scientific funding. Plus, you all support my city since Bosch Appliances Corp is headquartered in Irvine, CA.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 01:03 AM) Hawk is so close to AJ, he considers him like a son. I can see a scenario where he agrees to cut back games while mentoring AJ in the booth to take on a fulltime PBP or color role. If AJ wants it, he's going to be a big time national TV guy. That said, I'd love him on the Sox. I just don't know if he'd want to do the workload. That is a lot of work for a retired player who made plenty of coin in his day. All that said, I have no idea how he's spent / saved his money. I also support the idea of a 3 man booth if it eased the adjustment. I still enjoy Hawk from time to time, but he can get pretty unbearable. I also think the state of the franchise makes it harder for an announcer like him to do a good job. He's far more entertaining when the club is performing vs. when it isn't. When it isn't, he becomes more of an "excuse" guy because of his role and ties to the org. You obviously have to be careful as an announcer but I think Hawk on a reduced schedule would be good for all parties involved. I will still say one of my favorite all time booth's was Hawk / Whimpy in the 90's. They were great.

What is everyone's off the wall trade deadline prediction? I see the Sox potentially moving Tim Anderson in a 3 team deal (between a contender and another buy) to get a top 50 prospect that the Sox think is a better fit. I think they understand the need to improve the defense and feel that they can dangle Anderson to another org to get someone who might be a better fit (maybe a top young catcher, etc).

Interesting article and great to have someone like Lip a part of the new SoxNet. Quite a few interesting stories. Would be interesting in revisionist history if the Sox began that dominant. Would it changed who we became in the future (building off of success like that gives a huge advantage). That said, the Bears were once the best and when you look at the past 30 years, we aren't in the top half of franchises, imo. The thing that stands out to me is how important it is to have good ownership who supports good executive talent. It is why I've long said the smart investments are on your executive management team. Don't be cheap. Put the best president / GM out their and get the best scouts around. Invest in scouting and player development and be patient but also utilize free agency and potential payroll advantages to your advantage. Patience can be dangerous but you have to be diligent and strong minded. Understand who you are building around and put a proverbial fence around those people as it seems like some of the best teams understand the guys that "can" afford to deal vs. the guys they don't want to. I have total envy over what the Cubs and Dodgers are doing. Yes, some of it has to do with significant payroll resources and I even think some of it has to do with a sense of job security where they know they will be granted the time to do what it takes to do things right, etc. And some of you may call me crazy for throwing Dodgers and their looney tune payroll out their, but if you look at what they are doing (/have done) on the player development side, it is absurd. I also think if I were the Sox and wanted to do something aggressive, the first guy I would call would be Ned Coletti. He was replaced this off-season but really did an exceptional job bridging the gap between McCourt and others and also had plenty of success in San Francisco as well (his previous destination). Hahn does do a lot of things I like, but I also know that Kenny is still heavily involved and while I like Kenny for what he did and his aggression was nice, I want to see a sustained run of greatness and he's had a pretty large sample size of experience to prove that while he is better then most, he isn't going to drive a sustained run of greatness. Hard to say what Hahn can / can't do. He's clearly reinvested in the front office and we've seen more hits in our draft recently (of course how does it really grade out, hard to say) but I think the idea of going to an outside guy who has a history of doing things right and truly changing the culture of the organization would be huge. We've seen what has happened under Reinsdorf and while we have largely been relevant (plenty of .500 or above season's), we have failed to have any sustained post-season runs (i.e., making playoffs in 5 of 7 years type of runs) and we have largely had significant continuity in the organization (Schueler to Kenny to Hahn) were all pretty smooth hand offs (other then pissing off Dan Evans when KW got the job). When you compare the Bulls and the Sox, it is kind of amazing the difference in terms of overall success. Yes, one franchise did have Michael Jordan, but the Bulls have continuously made moves that winning and proud organizations do. They go after the biggest and the best (have failed more often then not, but they do it) and they don't settle with mediocrity (see removing Thibs). Kenny clearly was never afraid and I always commended him for that but I think after the runs we've had, we either need to give Rick more power or bring in a hired gun to help turn this thing around (by the way, I still think the ship is pointed in the right direction, but I want to see better long-term vision).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) Topical question! I had a new fridge and dishwasher delivered last weekend and was debating the same thing. I ended up tipping them 20 because the fridge took a lot of work to get in. They basically had to disassemble everything but the box, move it inside from the back of the house and then reinstall everything inside. I did the actual install on the water line and dishwasher, but still, it wasn't a simple pick-up/drop off situation. I figured 20 bucks for an hour of work, on "free delivery" from ABT, seemed reasonable. I was kind iffy on it and I basically had to grab the guy to give him the tip as he was walking out the door, so I bet it doesn't happen a lot. We went with a Samsung 4 drawer fridge and a Kitchenaid dishwasher. We were set on a Bosch dishwasher but the ABT guy told us that Bosch and other European manufacturers don't install heating elements, so it's common that the dishes don't dry inside, you have to crack the door and give it some time to air dry. It's also crazy quiet. 43 or 44 db's. The loudest part of the cycle is the sound coming out of the sink drain as the water drains out. We're now onto our range. There's a GE Cafe that we like a lot, but i'm not sure I want to drop 3k on it. We'll probably wait until the fall when there are good deals on the 2015 models. My Bosch dries really well. Thing I love about Bosch is their anti leak technology, how quiet it runs (although really...it isn't like a dishwasher is a jackhammer so its kind of a moot point), and how well they clean (my dishes were cleaner with my Bosch then any other dishwasher I've ever used. Than again, maybe it is just the newer technology vs. using older diswasher's previously.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) Topical question! I had a new fridge and dishwasher delivered last weekend and was debating the same thing. I ended up tipping them 20 because the fridge took a lot of work to get in. They basically had to disassemble everything but the box, move it inside from the back of the house and then reinstall everything inside. I did the actual install on the water line and dishwasher, but still, it wasn't a simple pick-up/drop off situation. I figured 20 bucks for an hour of work, on "free delivery" from ABT, seemed reasonable. I was kind iffy on it and I basically had to grab the guy to give him the tip as he was walking out the door, so I bet it doesn't happen a lot. We went with a Samsung 4 drawer fridge and a Kitchenaid dishwasher. We were set on a Bosch dishwasher but the ABT guy told us that Bosch and other European manufacturers don't install heating elements, so it's common that the dishes don't dry inside, you have to crack the door and give it some time to air dry. It's also crazy quiet. 43 or 44 db's. The loudest part of the cycle is the sound coming out of the sink drain as the water drains out. We're now onto our range. There's a GE Cafe that we like a lot, but i'm not sure I want to drop 3k on it. We'll probably wait until the fall when there are good deals on the 2015 models. If they install, I usually (well the every few years someone actually delivers something to my place) tip them 10 or 20 bucks (presuming I'm getting a few appliances). If they literally just drop it off in my garage, like in your case Hurt, that gets tougher. Depends on how much work it was. If it was pretty easy, I probably wouldn't tip.

AJ & Aaron Rowand would be two primary candidates. AJ would be a great get but I presume he'd rather get a national gig (and would probably be able to get it). I don't know if Rowand could but big difference between travel schedules, etc, between ocassional gig and any form of national gig. No idea how Crede is on a mic, but he'd be another guy. What about a Geoff Blum or Scotty Pods. He would have the personality and could have some interest, I suppose.

According to that article, Sox earn reported $650K in tv rights. That would mean over 162 games, their TV deal pays $105.3M. That # seems high to me, but if it were factual and you added in the national TV money of $50M then before gate sales, you are at $155M. I think it is safe to presume that gate revenues could cover all of your operational costs and then some, so again, for anyone who thinks Sox don't have the money to raise payroll or that we are in some horrible position where we can't possibly add payroll in the off-season, I think you are crazy. That said, it looks crazier based upon the $105M in local TV money which seems to be on the high side.

Is Herd going to FoxSports or what is he doing? Love his show.

QUOTE (BigFinn @ Jul 15, 2015 -> 08:04 AM) Hoffman could become an ace as soon as post 2016 all-star break. Max Pentecost has the bat to start in 2017, despite the surgery. But he may not have the arm to stick at catcher if the surgeries aren't as successful as hoped. I also don't realistically see Max as the guy Hahn gets as a primary piece for the sheer fact that his timetable doesn't jive an ultimate plan to contend sooner vs. later. Right or wrong, we could argue all we want, but Sox intend to give it a go next year with a retooled club and that means if you move Shark, you get back at least one piece you think helps you next year (and potentially even helps you this year if you think you have some semblance). Max is great as the 2nd guy and if he is the 2nd guy, I am happy with the trade.

QUOTE (BigFinn @ Jul 14, 2015 -> 07:50 PM) Stats for Andy Burns: 2015: .277/.338/.360 Career Minors: .268/.344/.432 Burns is thought of as a utility infielder. Pentecost hasn't returned since shoulder surgery this February. Hoffman and Pentecost and its a deal. But I would not trade Shark for Pentecost in a 1 for 1 trade and whomever we get as the 2nd piece should have upside and in fact, should be the better of the two prospects, imo. Catchers are high risk prospects add in the injury and even higher risk. I just don't see that package working. Maybe no one offers what I want but I think we can get more (Shark..keep pitching your ass off to help that cause too).

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jul 15, 2015 -> 03:50 PM) Other than not getting injured not a very good development year for Montas so far. Hasn't developed his secondary pitches and seems like for the most part scouts call his heater "flat" and "straight" even though it's coming at 99-102mph. This is a very Sox move to promote him rather than Johnson. I'm not sure what they are thinking. Montas might not even pitch and Johnson is in the AAA all star game. I think this is a matter of giving Montas a lil brief cup up (and some time with Coop and company) before he gets sent down right after the game. Coop might give him some stuff to work on, etc, but Johnson is still first guy up from a long-term perspective, imo. No point in bringing Johnson up to sit on the bench when he's got the all star game lined up instead (even though I'm sure Erik would like to get the cup of coffee, when it involves maybe not even playing, probably makes more sense not to bounce him and instead let him keep working on what he is doing at the minor league level and then get him up after you've dealt a starter. I expect we'll see extended view of Montas later this year, maybe even before September (although I doubt it). As far as development, Montas is still raw and he has made some strides and he has plenty of time to continue to develop.

Billy Joel...I always thought Hawks' favorite piano player was Ted Williams!!! Very entertaining read Dan. Loved the creativity.