GreenSox

The edge we have now is money to spend. Don't use it on a# 4 or Elvis Andrus for goodness sake. You'd have to give up players anyway. While the FA market is thin there are still players out there. Go get Sandoval or someone

I think that the Sox really do want to move Alexei...because he's really the only trade chit they have without digging into the farm, which they're still trying to build. And I think they think that can cover SS. Hahn's public protestations to the contrary. Just my perception

I suspect that Scherzer will be paid more for past performance than future. Pass

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) Yeah, I'll go ahead and celebrate even less salary flexibility for the Tigs I'm with ya.

He had a bad year in 13, 14 and he is woefully overpaid. You have to pay this guy 15 mill per annum for another NINE years. that's a good deal?

Good lord. Have we given up already?

For goodness sakes

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 12:01 AM) Also seen this from NY media @MartinoNYDN: On Alexei Ramirez, #WhiteSox prefer young SPs like Syndergaard/Wheeler/Montero, while #Mets prefer to deal Niese/Gee/Colon. (1/2) @MartinoNYDN: Also #WhiteSox, like #Mets, in mode of trying to build contender. So while they'd deal Ramirez, it's not like he's burning a hole in pocket. Thanks for posting those tweets. I think they really sum up the Sox position nicely. The Sox don't have to trade Alexei. If they want him, the deliver the young pitchers, not the old and/or mediocre.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 06:59 PM) The Sox did when they didnt resign Thome and went with Kotsay instead. The idea was fine. The execution - Kotsay - was poor.

For goodness sakes no rents. Foolishness.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 05:51 PM) If they refuse to give up one Wheeler/Syndergaard what would you guys think about Niese and Lagares? Is that even "less"? Niese is still youngish at 28 and would be a solid #3. Lagares is one of the best defensive outfielders in the league. Niese is not a 3 (neither is Noesi). More like a 4. Those are back end of the roster players. Pass.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) What is wrong with having two #1's and #2? If it wasn't for the money I would be all for having him but that isn't realistic. There is nothing wrong with getting another #1 if the money is right. How do you define the money being right? The marginal benefit from another number 1 is less than the marginal benefit of using that money in places of real need. For example, a number 3 and a good LF would benefit the sox more than a number 1

For Danks. Fine, but not for young players

Adding a number 1 when sox have so many holes isn't best use of resources

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) now according to cbs sports, Rollins have turn down Phillies request of being traded to NYM. mets are getting no where. Good news for us. Reduce that supply

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) 1. The team hasn't gotten better on defense. 2. When has acquiring NL talent actually benefited the Sox? I think they are cursed in this area. Carlos Quentin Adam eaton I'm not sure AL talent acquisitions have been any better

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) What I don't understand is people who complain about the team bargain shopping, yet don't want to bring in front line talent when it is there. Because it is an outrageously poor use of resources for a 73 team, one with still a bottom 1/3 farm system at that, to pay premium prices to rent players for 1 year. In fact, this type of move is what CAUSES teams to become 73 win teams with bad farm systems (see Jackson, E. for our two top pitching prospects). My guess is the ones who hate bargain shopping are the ones who would love to load the wagon for one year of Shark. Somebody will throw a decent prospect at Oakland. But it won't be an elite one. And it will be a team that plans on contending that has a deep farm (like Boston). And what is with this love for the Shark? Heck, sign Shields.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) Signing him as a free agent still means we are giving up a prospect to get him. There is a pretty good chance our 1st pick is unprotected next year, and he will get a qualifying offer for sure. Yes, for FOUR or so YEARS of his services. Not ONE season. Big difference. And most draft choices, other than the top 5 or so, aren't top prospects yet. Lesser value. And did someone actually suggest Rodon? None of Rodon, Danish, Anderson or Montas should be anywhere near a Shark trade. Beane made a bad trade, as subsequent trades last year proved. Did 1.5 years of Price yield a top prospect? No But for some reason we need to give one for 1 year of the inferior Shark.

He has the highest trade value in baseball, but one at which no team would be willing to meet.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) The thing there is there's a good chance he's traded and the possibly extended. If he's a player the Sox truly have eyes on I'd have no problem trading for him. Really? Trade and sign? How many of these have happened? I's like the "flip". That never happens, but it will happen with the Sox. And so what if someone does sign him. There are other FA pitchers out there. What is so great about this guy (other than some weird cub psyche that so many have). And then there's his value. Top prospect? Did Price yield a top prospect? Oak gave up an elite prospect for him, and that price should be cut in half. Further, he wasn't worth an elite prospect to begin with -Beane misread the market badly. So if you figure what he was worth - 1 top prospect and divide it by half, you're left with a decent prospect. At that price, I don't care - sure, trade for him. But for one our best prospects? Ridiculous.

Wait until he's a free agent and sign him then. Save the prospects that we don't have in abundance. Sox have a marginal chance at the division with or without Shark. Oakland made a terrible deal trading for him and they were contenders (their Lester deal was far superior, despite the hand-wringing over the overrated Cespedes). This would be inane like the Edwin Jackson deal was.

How often does a team sign a rented player during the rental period? Rarely. Sox don't need rents

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 8, 2014 -> 01:07 PM) If they dont get big deal for alexei I wouldn't trade him That's the bottom line. The Sox certainly can use Alexei and have no real need to trade him, unless that trade firms up several other weaknesses. If it doesn't, then keep him.

While renting Heyward would be a pure clown move, the Sox wouldn't have to give up Rodon, Anderson or Montas to do so. Please identify the top prospect Tampa received for David Price, a player with another year on his deal, in the extreme July sellers market.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 8, 2014 -> 03:24 AM) Avy Montas and Rondon wasn't good enough? Well, Montas and Rodon weren't what they are now, back then. We'd never get them in that deal in their current progression. Still, I thought the return on Peavy was fair at the time: 1 top prospect and 3 lottery ticket A ball players. I don't recall anyone being dissatisfied with the Santiago return. I wasn't and I liked Santiago more than most - to me, he was about like Wheeler (without the former top prospect hype): similar WHIP, high K, control problems. As for Rios, that was a "Get him off the team" trade in the waiver period where you rarely get full value. Speaking of the return, L Garcia cannot be on this roster next year. He may have had the worst offensive year in Sox history.