Marty34

Friend of mine sent me a couple of links to Sox games he found on youtube with Harry & Jimmy announcing thought I'd pass them along. Yankees at Sox 8/1/79 Orioles at Sox 4/23/81 Enjoy.

Blue Jays, Royals, DBacks, Pirates, and Nationals - there are your teams for Quintana, throw in the Cubs too.

Imagine its value when it makes the playoffs two years in a row or God forbid three times in four. This outfit is an absolute sleeping giant.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 06:38 PM) Some rumors are advantageous for one team in the slightest, some rumors are advantageous for one team completely. I don't understand your point, "you can say the same thing about any rumored deal" no s***? Does that need to be said? I am simply saying we would be fleecing Toronto in Quintana for Lawrie and Sanchez. How good do you think Lawrie will be? As has been pointed out earlier in this thread he has regressed. He's a risky proposition to trade a burgeoning starter like Quintana for.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) I guess I would listen to the scouts. If they were insistent on Lawrie bouncing back and this kid really having a solid chance to be a #1 or 2, then I'd probably try to squeak out another prospect from them, and if I could get that, I'd probably pull the trigger. Before I'd make that deal, I'd have to see who the best hitter 26 or under Quintana could bring back regardless of position. I'd think it would have to be better than Lawrie.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) Even with that very important strength, I don't like the idea of trading Quintana for a prospect and another guy that seems to be on the same path as Gordon Beckham. Sure the 22nd best prospect is nice and all, but I'll take the guy who has been proving it in mlb for the last two seasons anytime unless I am getting something better than Lawrie. Agreed. Santiago for Lawrie, the Jays probably wouldn't do. I think the Sox and Jays match up well for some kind of deal though.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:22 PM) You are not barred from re-signing him or making a qualifying offer to him. Then wait for him to become a free-agent instead of giving anything up for him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) So how do you understand your own posts? I expect no less from you.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) You really need to stop using this argument. You could say that about damn near anybody but the fact of the matter is, if they bring in enough talented players, they could compete. I'm not saying they will do either. I'm saying you don't stop yourself from acquiring a good player because "you're not going to compete," especially if the cost is right. When you have control of that player for only one year . . .

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) In his bad year, he surpassed Gillaspie and has a gold glove history. Arbitration would be $8.5 to 9 mil for one season and because of that salary, he wouldn't cost much at all to acquire. A comeback year would equal .285 30HR 110RBI 15SB .870 OPS. Even a mediocre year of .260 17HR 70RBI 5SB .780 OPS, would be better than what they've had the last few years at 3B. They're not going to contend next year with Headley and the Padres asking price will be too high.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) DA was just teasing Marty Yes, DA doesn't understand the concept.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 11:13 AM) You wouldn't pay some cash for a good year and possible 1st round supplimental pick? No. Sure third base is an issue, but the bigger problem is hitter regardless of position and I don't think Headley upgrades the offense enough.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 10:17 AM) Two position players, every time With the group of young starters the Sox have, I might rather deal Quintana and fill multiple positions, sign a free-agent starter and save an estimated $35-$40M.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 10:12 AM) You don't trade Peavy to sign Jimenez or Garza. Those guys would be terrible acquisitions, ESPECIALLY with the Sox ability to develop starting pitchers Would you rather sign a pitcher or two position players?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 10:00 AM) Who is the number two starter waiting to fill his spot? Jeff Hoffman, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Garza, etc...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:40 AM) We can always trade Quintana, and I am sure his trade value will never be higher. Then again, it signals that we plan on perpetual rebuilding, and there is no point is seeing this team until next decade. How so? I't's dealing from a strength to fill a weakness or two.

Headley will be 30 y.o. and a free-agent after next year. Pass.

I think one of the more interesting things this offseason will be trying to find out the trade value of Quintana. It's difficult to find a good match of a team with young hitters that needs a very good, cheap left-handed pitcher. My thinking is deal Quintana, back fill his rotation spot with a middling free-agent (Josh Johnson?) short-term and look at a long-term solution (Jeff Hoffman?) with the #3 pick. Any ideas as to what would be an acceptable return for Quintana?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) Then what? What about C, 3B, LF, and CF? Do our 4/5 starters and RF have what it takes to break out? Why are we so eager to become the Cubs? If we dig in and fall short, we are looking at a ifnancial disaster. We need to have SOME patience. They need a year to figure out what they have in the core and if it's a team that's a couple big pieces from contention, THEN you splurge. Coming of a 99 loss season, there is little argument that the team is within reach. The stakes are too high to go allin right now. Agreed. This is why you explore picking up a guy like Uggla and deal Beckham and Ramirez.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 03:37 PM) But...if the opening day payroll comes in around $100 million...the people who have been screaming for years that the Sox are cheap will actually have a point for once. (That number chosen because they also get over $10 million to spend on kids next year...that would bring them roughly to the total amount they spent last year when you account for the trades...and they get the extra TV money on top of that). Exactly. This is where the organizational philosophy to not spend money on the draft comes home to roost. Digging out of this hole will be done faster by spending money in the short-term. This has probably been the emergency plan all along. Put a representative team on the field for the next couple of years while the farm system has time to grow. A step to infusing the farm system with talent would be to eat Ramirez remaining contract, get the Braves to give up something for Dan Uggla's contract, and trade Beckham. After all that the payroll sits at $73M, Uggla and Semien are 2b and SS, you have the prospects from those deals, and $24M comes off the books for 2016.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 02:59 PM) You think they're going to add $50m+ in 2014 payroll over the offseason though? I'd be surprised if they didn't match or come close to last year's number.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) Why and how? Our 2013 opening day payroll was like $118m or something I don't think they'll sit on all of extra $25M from the TV contract. They have money, they don't have enough good players.

I' think they'll bump payroll up short-term.

It would be difficult to pass on Hoffman.

Re-sign Konerko and if he isn't hitting by the middle of May he retires. It's not a big deal.