Chisoxfn

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:40 PM) That blows my mind. Welcome to 2015 and the post PED era (also consistent with the vast majority of baseball history). Catchers that can hit are an extremely rare breed. The toll taken from catching games (as well as time spent on pitch calling / opposing stats / etc) juts makes it so difficult to be able to hit for much. Its why an upgrade at C is nice, but compared to what we have going on in the outfield and at 3B, it pales in comparison to overall importance.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) i hate to ruin anybodies parade, but the sox doesn't need help in the outfield. so why add to that and let the other holes go untouched. Sox OF WAR, I believe, is the worst in all of baseball. I don't know any scenario where anyone would say that all around we have anything even close to an average outfield. Adding Puig is a mega upgrade. Edit: Sorry, late to the party but I see Balta has already covered this.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:28 AM) The Sox wouldn't do Q for Puig straight up. If the Sox trade Q, it will be to get an above average ML ready 3B or C, + some other high upside prospects. The Sox definitely would not just throw Avi in the deal in addition. Let's fix the holes we have, not fix something that isn't broken (I am not an Avi hater, and want to give him at least another 1.5 seasons - the dude is young). Puig = 9.8 WAR in 295 MLB games. Garcia = -.5 WAR in 218 games. I realize Garcia could develop, but lets not act like we aren't talking about a significant upgrade here.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:21 AM) Neither. He's always been overrated. Sure, he hasn't been this bad, but he's nowhere near as good as everyone thinks. Also, keep in mind that's in just 43 games. He had a DL stint. So his 143 and 159 OPS+ were make believe? It isn't like those were over small sample sizes (1.5 years of baseball) including multiple stretches where he was the best player in the game. He's also had some runs where he has struggled. He is very very good and he's very very young. The tools are their, he has production, etc. This isn't some guy who hasn't proven anything. He had one of the best starts to his career of any player in baseball history (and the production matched the tools). Other then people complaining about his attitude and some flaws in his approach, etc (that he more then makes up with thanks to massive tools), what part is overrated. Seems to me that people are severely underrating him because he's got a bad idea. By the way, watch him play, while he might have attitude issues and be prone to mental miscues, this isn't some guy who is loafing it out on the field. He plays with an edge and is extremely aggressive. In fact, most think his struggles this year have been combo of the time off from injuries as well as fact that the Dodgers have messed with him a bit. He needs to play with that edge and the sox need people like him. I also think Abreu and Ramirez would be nice, stabilizing presences in the lockeroom. We can listen to all the reports but right now, the cool thing in the media is to bash Puig's attitude, but I'd much rather watch him then anyone else on our roster not named Sale.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:16 AM) If they're desperate, they should take Q and Danks for Puig. They are in first place with I believe 5 or 6 top 50 prospects (including at least 2 in the top 10 and possibly three...going off of memory here) and a huge payroll. They are not desperate. The White Sox are much more desperate in comparison. Are we desperate to trade Q, no, but we are desperate to improve our current situation, imo. If we aren't, we should be. We need to significantly upgrade our everyday lineup and we don't have significant upgrades on the way in the minors. We do have potential upgrades in the rotation in the minors, but that isn't an area of weakness. We could move those pitchers for position talent but we could also do some combinations and as far as I'm concerned, moving Q (better if you could move Shark, but I would be more surprised if that were to happen) for Puig is just something the White Sox need to do.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:15 AM) I'm glad you brought up Grienke. His impeding opt out makes the Dodgers even more desperate for a guy like Q. I agree the Sox are in need of hitting talent but not desperate to trade Q. There is a market for both Samardzija and Robertson, both of which can be traded to infuse more hitting talent into the Sox organization. And no, I'm not kidding you about his attitude. His attitude has been written about more than a few times going back to 2013 and here's the latest written about Puig's attitude. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2511284...dgers-teammates I know its the bleacher report but the quotes in the article speak volumes. If you trade Robertson, you aren't getting a game changer back. Roberton's contract is long term and while its fair, it isn't any sort of bargain and the size of that deal is going to put very few teams in play, to be frank. So I don't see how moving Shark / Robertson gives you access to anyone at the level of Puig. Regarding Puig, I live in SoCal, so I'm more then familiar with his attitude. I'm also familiar with how he plays on the field and while he has miscues and issues (showing up on time, etc), when he's on the field, he generally plays overly aggressive and that is the exact opposite of the vast majority of our roster and to be frank, i'd rather have the over aggressive guy then the under aggressive guy.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:06 AM) There's no question about that. I said Q for Puig was fair; I just wouldn't do it because of Puig's immaturity. Puig has big upside and big risks. Q is steady. Is their that much risk in Puig. Even if he's crazy, he's still performing above his contract. I don't see him not being an above average player and would think ultimately, greater injury risk is with a pitcher. When I consider our needs and the complete lack of positional talent, the fact that you could put Puig in the middle of our order and have him help stabilize the defense is huge, imo. Seems like a perfect match as Dodgers get a lot of benefits here as well. Like I said, I'm all for asking for me, but when push comes to shove, I think Puig replacing Q makes us a better team (especially when I factor what we have in the minors).

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.