GreenSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) "3 of its top 5 prospects" really is a silly way to describe the trade for Peavy because 1 of those prospects was actually a close to MLB-ready guy, but the others were "guys buried deep in the minors who were only our top prospects because there wasn't much in the system". Swisher - 2 were ML ready and one was our top pitching prospect in the low minors. And a lot of these prospects in the various top 50 lists, including many "untouchables" are still in A ball, so they have high value. Williams was an aggressive GM....he gave a top 5 prospect in all of baseball plus a starting catcher for a good-not-great Freddie Garcia. He way overpaid, but it worked...the prospect was a bust and Garcia had a fine year in 2005. He then turned him into Gio and Floyd. He did all sorts of things -his top draft choice the year before was traded for a rent of either Everett or Alomar - forget which. But there's not a GM in baseball except perhaps Bryan Sabean who had the guts to do those deals that Williams made. Everyone's afraid of trading the next Bagwell. But toward the end, his aggression started failing. So anyway, as we're dumping veterans, perhaps there's a new Kenny W out there to trade with us. Heck, the way prospects are valued, the real "value" very well may be in the veterans.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 09:50 AM) I also want no part of Middlebrooks. If we are trading with Texas the package should be built around Sardinas. With the Red Sox my top target would be Cecchini with Vincio also included. I agree to pass on Middlebrooks, and your suggestions are excellent top targets. But I just don't see us scoring a top 50 for Peavy. I hope I'm wrong.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) Yes, more involved in look at the players the Sox acquire. This is not news, so you can take your tin foil hat off. Yes, Williams said "We don't feel we're including enough in this trade, we need to give you Gonzalez too." Orrrrrrrrrrr Gio Gonzalez was the main piece in the deal and Beane wanted him to send Ryan Sweeney and Fautino De Los Santos too. That's nice. But that's pretty much what likely happened. Williams wanted Swisher, and Beane kept asking for more, and Williams gave in. I can't think of another example of a team giving up 3 of its top 5 prospects for a decent but non-all star hitter like Swisher. We did a similar thing when trading for Edwin Jackson.......Hopefully we can score a similar deal for Peavy.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) And Howry and Foulke were key parts of the 2000 team, but we can't mention that. We have to talk about how the Red Sox waited 7 years instead of 3 years for that trade to work out for them . Dude Boston made the playoffs the next year....and in 99 and in 2003. It was 7 years before they won a WS. We had to get a new GM before we won one of those. As your goal here is apparently to stick a thumb in my eye and say "na na na na na" I'll give you some ammo: you could point out the closer on Boston's 2004 WS team was none other than Keith Foulke. Otherwise, I don't know what your point is.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) Of course it is a bad philosophy, that is why nobody has it, including the white sox. Its funny that you put this "we wouldnt deal with the desperate mariners" onus on the White Sox 16 years after the fact, because I never heard anything of the sort. Ever. Please prove me wrong, I would love to read anything that proves this little tinfoil hat theory. Armchair GMs are fun. Then you weren't listening or watching. And then you could check out Slocumb's stats from 1997, including his 1.90 WHIP and ERA near 6 and his 17 saves, and then check out Roberto Hernandez and his 27 saves, and tell me who was the better closer and that Seattle wouldn't have taken Roberto in a heartbeat...without even considering the 2 other pitchers the Sox threw in. And the reason I'm bringing this up now is that in this thread, some said we don't want to trade with the Tigers. Just pointing out a specific instance where that philosophy was extremely costly.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) You'd have to add a LOT more to make "throwing in" Crain make sense. Lindstrom might be closer to somebody that could be called a throw in. Maybe...I think a healthy Crain brings a B prospect or 2. Not as much as we'd like. I think Nate Jones is getting close to Reed, and may surpass him.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) The problem with this is that Castellanos is too much for Reed, but the Tigers don't have anything else that's worth him. I guess he is, based on how teams value elite prospects...higher than above average major leaguers. We could throw in another player...hell throw in Crain, although they'd probably have to add something on their side. It would be nice to get an elite prospect somwhere, instead of all Bs.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 03:07 PM) Wtf??!! Those trades happened 16 years ago! And the philosophy is "don't trade within your division", not league. The Sox have made plenty of trades within the American League, both before and after the White Flag trade I don't care if it was 160 years ago - it's a bad philosophy. And that is precisely why we dealt with the Giants then instead of stealing from the desperate Mariners. If you have to deal with Detroit, deal with Detroit. Yea, we'll have to look at Reed for a while...they'll have to look at Castellanos. And while I never heard Williams say he wouldn't sell to the AL or to our division, he rarely did and only once to a contender as I recall (Durham to Oakland). The other time was E Jax to non-contender Toronto. But he rarely sold in July anyway, so that may not mean much.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) I talked to a Sox executive yesterday who told me it's not Kenny's job anymore. This is a Hahn operation. Good. Kenny had his moments of brilliance, but it was time for a change.

I don't care who we trade him to. Whoever offers the most and the most must be a lot. Castellanos would work fine. We lost out on Veritek and Lowe because of that sorry philosophy of not helping a team in your league...Boston go those two for 1/3 of the value we sent to SF for, essentially, Foulke and Howry.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 12:35 PM) It seems like there is too much importance being put on this start for Peavy. Teams aren't going to base Peavy's value on 1 start. As long as he shows he's healthy, it doesn't matter whether he throws a shutout or gets shellacked. If he's hitting the numbers on the gun and able to throw all his pitches are what the teams are going to want to see. It's not like if he throws 7 scoreless inning that Boston, or whoever, is going to start adding pieces to the mix. Teams know by now the limits they are willing to stretch for just about any player. But all that's going to happen in this start. He'll either hit is numbers and pitches or he won't in this start...Yes, it's important. What if he doesn't have his velocity and he can't throw key pitches for strikes? Wouldn't you say that's a negative re his value?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 11:23 AM) Floyd was the definition of dumpster-diving. He was literally a throw-in in that deal, the Phillies were probably on the verge of dumping him, he'd failed a couple times for them already. WE traded Garcia to get Gio back; but then Williams gave him to Oakland when he paid double any reasonable price for a decent hitter in Swisher. Hopefully they are letting Hahn negotiate these trades.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 10:59 AM) No need to settle for anything with Peavy. He will be in the same situation Garza is now, next year. Agree. Yea he could get hurt again. What's the loss? The pittance we'd settle for if we settle.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 20, 2013 -> 10:02 AM) I trust Red Sox and DBacks systems. I would stay away from the Rockies and giants systems. Why?

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 05:43 PM) There would have to be significant $$ going to PITT and I'm not sure Rick would do that right now. Considerations is a bigtime debate in the offices...almost more than target players right now. I hope that doesn't mean that they are in salary cutting mode. The deal I saw had Rios and Alexei going for some somewhat youngish Pirate bench players - numbers looked like those thrown up by Viciedo and Flowers, with a moderate upgrade over Dylan Axelrod. I'd much rather A and A ball players with some upside but more risk.

What they need to do is work on their efficiency so that they can throw 8 or 9 innings on fewer pitches. This is particularly true for Santiago. But there's no reason to throw these guys 110+ innings. Going more innings is the goal - not throwing more pitches. The Sox lead the league in high inning starts and I am not to the point where I think that Robin Ventura knows more than his peers.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) Aces are usually one and the same Often they are. But they aren't routinely pitched 115 innings plus like Ventura pitches our pitchers. Pitching their arm off isn't how they became aces.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:59 AM) Before Garza goes, Peavy is the best pitcher on the market. Levine is high on drugs. Exactly. But this is the Bruce Levine who said Kevin Gregg would be a great pickup for some team.

Yes. We don't need him as an innings eater. We need him as an ace, front of the rotation starter. And our other young pitchers should be ridden less as well. This team doesn't exist so that Ventura and Cooper can scratch out 70 wins instead of 65

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 12:14 AM) Looking at some of the names in the Pirates system, RHRP Victor Black seems like someone who might be a guy the Sox look at as part of a package. Had some arm problems as a starter but has remained healthy since being moved to the bullpen, and also struggles with control at times, but has a power arm and is close to MLB ready. Since a lot of the guys in this bullpen seem to be on their way out, it might not be a bad idea to bring in some young, cost controlled replacements. Andrew Oliver also seems like someone the Sox could possibly want as a throw in. He seems like a classic Coop project who has good stuff but struggles with control. These are basically C+ prospects. I think we could probably get 1 B in addition or in lieu of one, but that's about it. But we'll see. Low ceiling pitchers (i.e. bullpen pitchers) aren't my cup of tee in trades - we can develop those or get them in the offseason.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 08:26 PM) Good lord, I am happy you're not the GM. If the SOX are moving Rios, Peavy and sending $10M in the deal, they better be getting some very legitimate talent ready to produce by next year. If not, why trade them? Neither have outrageous contracts. No point in trading guys just to trade them, the SOX have plenty of money coming off the books in the next 36 months. I just don't think the SOX will trade guys to drop payroll to $60M and be the Marlins next year, and the move you suggested would be just that. It's not what I want. I just see a dry market. Hope I'm wrong. The Peavy/Garza question above is a good one. Peavy at his best his better, his career is better. He's signed for longer. His salary is higher and Garza's had a really good year. And Peavy is fresh off injury. Garza should give us an idea of what we'll get.

The problem is that the classic buyers aren't really in buyer mode this year - Dodgers have bought enough, Yankees aren't buyers, Angels aren't buyers. Tigers and BoSox could be but they don't really need starters. The Nats will buy when appropriate, but they aren't buying either. Atlanta has been gunshy for years. I think we'll get an idea of what the market looks like when Garza is traded...Cubbies in high Media frenzy to try to get a trade done. My guess is they get a 51-100 prospect for him. If they do better, that should portend well for us. I'd guess something like Peavy, Rios and $10 mill to the Rangers for 2 B prospects and a youngish backup on their ML roster. We might be able to squeeze Olt out of them, as his stock is dropping fast (and he was always overhyped). Crain to someone for a B. That's about it.

I certainly think issues such as lazy defense, bad base running and poor managing has contributed to half of our misery this year. I don't know the extent to which WAR measures those factors. The team isn't very good, but the starting pitching is good, the front of the bullpen was too prior to Crain's injury. Certainly not a horrendous team as it has played, although a below average team.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) Jackson 2 was perfectly fine. Jackson was a sunk cost at that point, so they dealt him, got rid of Teahen's mini-albatross of a contract, pick up good pitching prospect (Stewart busted) and a reliever who was then dealt back to the Jays for Myles Jaye (solid prospect) and Daniel Webb (top 10 prospect). Jackson 2 was terrible. WE took one of the top available starters at the deadline, and salary dumped him and Teahen. We got a mediocre middle reliever and a prospect who was in decline. We recouped with the subsequent trade of the reliever back to the Jays. But Jackson 2 was beyond awful - didn't make any effort at all to get talent out of that deal. We did it to dump salary (Jackson was pitching very well) and to help out Toronto who needed him to get the CF they wanted from Stl. Maybe I'm jaded because WE gave up our 2 top pitching prospects for him a year earlier, at a time when Az was looking for a salary dump and he had an ERA in excess of 5.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) If we'd have to eat 80% of the salary you're right. This whole discussion was driven by statements that if a team would pick up much more than that (i.e. claim Dunn on waivers or something like that) the Sox would hesitate. Sure, if someone pick up his whole salary they'll let him walk. But they won't because he's not close to worth it. Otherwise, I'd rather have him around than a bunch of Danks Jrs and DeWayne Wises at DH.