Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 04:21 PM) Enjoying the back and forth between Hawk and Stone offering their perspectives on the career of Pedro. One of those guys you had to watch pitch. He was incredible. Still insane that the Dodgers traded him to the Expos for Delino Deshields because Tommy thought he was too small to play.

Balta - I owe you $5 bucks. EJ is on the mound in Charlotte.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) it does matter to tank and sink, but if the sox miss the playoff and yet make no trades, then the system is ok. but if the sox made trades to make a run, what will be left for the club to build on??? Nowhere is the value of a 1st round pick less, then in baseball. The value of winning, because, dare I say it, your players are doing good, is so much better then the difference in the #5 pick of the #12 pick. The one exception is if you are winning because of 3 or 4 guys, all of which are going to be gone with no compensation at the end of the season.

What is sad is that Murphy and Dejesus are better then Avi (if we intend to contend this year).

Don't understand why they needed Murphy and Victorino. Murphy is a nice upgrade over Matt Joyce (and Victorino for that matter).

QUOTE (Doc Edwards Shot @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 03:15 PM) I don't know much about DFA, so somebody help me out... Why can't they/won't they DFA LaRoche? He's bad enough to warrant it. Are there some union issues/labor contract issues that prevent them from doing it? Because the Sox would have to pay all of his salary next year (and the rest of this year). I don't think they are ready to do that. I also don't think it would be prudent to assume LaRoche is a bust and I also don't know if we have better options in house. Yes, he is struggling, but he also had some hand issues (IIRC) and they very well might be impacting his performance as well. If I were going to DFA him, it wouldn't be this year, it would be after he had a shot next year (with a fresh off-season / season).

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 03:09 PM) Love watching winning baseball but this recent run has really hurt the Sox. Giving false hope and now deciding to hold on for deals. Sox team has far too many holes to fill to stand pat. Not a good choice. I would hypothesize that Shark's value is actually higher today then it was a week ago. The Sox actually have more leverage and other pitchers have moved (and / or never ended up entering the market). Bottom line, I don't know if the Sox really are going to move him, but I think if we moved him today, we'd get more then we would have a week ago. I don't know if I would have predicted that a week ago, but it at least looks that way. And I suppose it could change again in a day.

I really don't think one bad trade is going to have that much impact on his price. I also felt the same way about Hamels. No way is a team going to go, "oh, he just threw a no-hitter", I better give up an extra prospect. People know what they have on Shark and Hamels, by and large. If a guy had 5 bad starts in a row, certainly it would impact his value, just as much as if he had 5 good starts in a row, at least that is a bit of a sample size. I think if Shark goes out and has a rough game, it doesn't change what he's done over past 7 or 8 starts. People have scouted these guys and reached a decision based upon that. Only wildcard really is injuries. Now if he goes out and throws a complete game shutout, it definitely doesn't hurt, but end of the day, I don't know if teams really give up more based upon the final start a guy makes prior to the deadline (unless like I said mechanically or health wise you are seeing issues).

It is unbelievable how many moves could have altered the course of history. On the flip side, an interesting series might be on what if the Sox didn't do X? It still amazes me though how poorly the Sox (under numerous regime's) have been from a business perspective. That said, I don't have much appreciation for other teams history in relation to the business side, but those TV situations were brutal. Of course, I don't know how key TV revenue's were at that time (I presume the dynamic then was bulk of the revenue was from ticket sales vs. nowadays where the bulk of the revenue is from tv contracts).

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 12:42 PM) It pains me but I'm going to through this out there: blockbuster deal with us keeping Shark and re-signing him in Free Agency. LAD get Quintana, Anderson, Montas CWS get Puig, Seager, Urias I would do that deal in a heartbeat, but I very much doubt the Dodgers do. Plus it is pretty rare when two teams are trading their top prospects in a deal between each other (yes each team is also giving up major league pieces). If we were really lucky, we'd be able to deal Q and a reliever (maybe just Q but I doubt it) for Puig + (and by + I mean a Guerrero or a Barnes).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 12:34 PM) It would be interesting to talk to Guerrero of the Dodgers and see if a trade were executed, if you could get him to wave his free agency/release clause in his contract in exchange for a reasonable assurance of playing time. Yep. I am extremely interested in Guerrero as a sweetner and think he'd be a nice long-term fit (low risk with some high potential upside). Given our track record with cuban players, it might help and clearly we have playing time available at some positions he could fit in. I heard on the local radio yesterday that he is supposedly open to it.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 12:17 PM) I don't know if I'd be excited or worried if we swapped Ethier and Danks. Ethier is locked in longer term, but fortunately not when Sale, Q or Abreu are up. I do think that EJ and Ethier would improve the team this year. I don't know if EJ would be better then Danks but I do think Ethier's bat is an upgrade and EJ very well might be an upgrade either way. I do not think the deal would just be Danks for Ethier or Crawford though. Clearly cash would have to come to the White Sox. Maybe instead the Sox would take on the cash but ask for other players to come back but I don't know that the Dodger are that desperate.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 06:50 AM) Either go 40-27 for 85 wins, or 27-40 for 90 losses. One or the other. In baseball, even if we missed the trade, I'd root for the wins. We have young players and can win games and that is better off then any value in difference of picks that could be so far from helping the club. In other sports, I buy the tank / stink argument, in baseball, I absolutely do not.

If you are trying to win, you need to add another bat, preferably one who can play defense in the outfield. Then you can platoon one of the outfield bats with LaRoche and hope that works.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 11:21 AM) Who do we give up? Danks.

One of Ethier / Crawford will be a White Sox.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:20 AM) Q and Shark for Donaldson and Pentecost I would need one of their pitchers too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:24 AM) I would take that bet. Only way he isn't positioned to be their in a fall back scenario, is if the Sox have already decided they aren't trading Shark.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:23 AM) Puig is cancer, has s***ty numbers this year, and I think there is more value in Quintana's contract. Quintana is signed for two additional years (afforadable team options) when Puig will already be gone via FA. And Puig is more expensive than Quintana for the next 3.5 years. I don't hate the idea, but I want more than Puig back for Q, not a 1-1, and I think a package of prospects would be better than trading for a guy that widely known as a complete clown. Puig, Barnes, and Guerrero. Why Guerrero, because I said so, and because he has supposedly indicated he'd be open to signing with a team who trades for him (so if we could lock him in, we might have someone, who with development time, could be our 3B of the future). He clearly isn't ready to be that today.

I would bet 5 bucks that EJ is in Boston. And if he isn't, that he is in a place where he can get their pretty darn quickly.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 09:01 AM) True, but the way I see it, had they not sent Reyes, they would have had to send even less in prospects....and they didn't even send a top 50, while also getting that salary relief by dumping Reyes on them. People here wanted Hoffman + for 1/2 year of Shark. Well the Jays sent Hoffman + for Troy T, with net additional salary of only $54 mill through 2020. This is a steal. If I were the Jays, I'd rather have gotten Shark for Hoffman. They need pitching. I think AA totally screwed upon on this one. Tulo is a stud when healthy but dude is never healthy so to give up all that and take on payroll, etc, awful. And if Reyes is that negative, then we should be able to get him for a total steal.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 08:57 AM) Reyes is an absolute BUTCHER at SS at this point in his career. No thanks. I can't call him an absolute butcher. His season splits aren't near as bad. I also am not opposed to seeing him play 3B. Yeah yeah, he's never played their before, but he was a shortstop, dude has an arm and can figure out 3B with time and probably be pretty damn good over their.

Then go start it Mr Row. Slacker.

If we buy, I get a sneaking suspicion we'll be buying one of the Dodger OF'ers. I would want Puig but I think more realistically it would be Danks for Ethier or Crawford + cash.

Like this deal a lot for the Rockies. Reyes, at least by and large, plays (vs. Tulo) and while his contract is also expensive they got some good prospects (I love Hoffman's upside). I wonder if the Sox would like at Reyes. He's old and will be on the decline, but, he'd be an overall upgrade at shortstop and I presume the Rockies aren't interested in paying Reyes. Wonder if their could be a deal their that made sense without the Sox having to give up much (and potentially even getting some cash).