Buehrle>Wood

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 09:22 PM) If money is an issue with STL, we should pay Peavy's contract and take in more talent. I know it would never happen but to me it is entirely practical. We have more money than we will spend why don't we use it to create young talent. Ultimately, I think Jaker goes to Boston but I think the FO should do everything in their power to have Matt Adams as our OD first baseman next year. Whatever the cost. And effectively pay a prospect or two 18 million dollars or so? Uh no that would be just horrible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 10:06 PM) I'm going to be skeptical until it happens, the Sox holding on to Peavy would almost exactly fit with what happened in 2007 the last time they stunk it up. Yeah, I fond Soxtalk's confidence in him getting dealt pretty funny right now. it could still happen but it is 50/50 at best

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:32 PM) A's could be dark horse team for Peavy says Jon Heyman. They were the runner up for Garza fwiw

We've played the most one run games in baseball and lost a good chunk of those. Even just remotely average hitting would go a long ways.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) team would take Danks, even if you wanted to dump him-which I don't. But he's shown flashes of returning to form. If he keeike he has the rest of 201here's no reason he can't return to his "old" self. The key is how to best fix the roster, without gutting key pieces. Quintana has shown he's the real deal. These deadlines deals won't do it by themselves. IMO, Santiago could bring back the piece (s) to finish the rebuild, retool, whatever. Danks rebounding next year could make him the Peavy of this deadline. I agree no team is taking Danks unfortunately. I really really don't want us to trade Santiago though. I had this argument yesterday but what he has done in his first 17 starts with his ERA and elite strikeout rate is nothing short of top prospect material. If our defense gets better and he develops a little more, we are talking ace material. I cant see how we possibly get fair value for him

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) Danks has no trade value. Yet he is a great bet to return to his prior form, next year, Which is a higher upside than Santiago. Santiago has far more trade value than Danks. Even after this deadline, and the sox manage good returns from Peavy, et al, the sox offense will still need to improve to contend in 2014-which the sox probably can with the right moves. A Santiago trade could net the pieces to make that possible, without killing the SP. Dumping Danks at his all time lowest value makes no sense, unless the sox just want to cut costs. It frees up 45 million dollars to spend elsewhere, which anyone should want over the risk of seeing if John Danks can ever be decent again.

To go to bed or not go to bed

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 04:07 AM) They have plenty of pitching prospects. Owens, Barnes, Webster, Ranaudo, Workman, Britton etc. I would love Cecchini but I have a feeling that it's wishful thinking. Other than that I like Swihart and Mookie. Not huge on Brentz, Iglesias, or Marrero though. If their third rated prospect and number 41 in MLB is wishful thinking then we need to start looking elsewhere.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:31 AM)

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:26 AM) I just turned on the game. Looks like I've missed a fun one, eh?

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:19 AM) Wrong thread, I know, but Dodgers could use one more starter. They should also not use Marmol

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:42 AM) Dan Hayes is awful Fixed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 02:28 AM) I didn't know we had prominent scouts According to the other thread that's what Kenny is up to these days.

LOL at Marmol

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:04 AM) 41,000, but there is NO f***ING WAY that was representative of what I saw in the seats. I was there last night, and it looked about 20-22K. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/gametracker/r...0130722_DET@CHW "Attendance - 1" I was there think there was a little more than 22k but you're right, certainly not 41k. That's likely a placeholder, as it is max capacity. I don't think they announced it for whatever reason.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 12:32 AM) Supposedly, the Red Sox, Detroit, and the Dodgers were also looking at K Rod. Make Detroit really really desperate.

QUOTE (Noonskadoodle @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:27 AM) Tons of scouts watching Rios tonight. Base knock!!! And stolen base #21

Thanks

What happened

QUOTE (Noonskadoodle @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 12:12 AM) So K-Rod brings in a top 5 prospect in the Os organization? Hmmmm It's not a particularly great farm system? I would hope we could get that return for Crain, but uh, yeah now I don't think that's going to happen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 11:56 PM) It's probably some Chicago radio dips*** making crap up Well, he said it was a Fox sports station. We only have a CBS one and an ESPN one, as far as I know.

I'm not exactly sure of the purpose of the Alexei for Freese swap part.

It's going to be windy

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 10:45 PM) How many times in the past 20 years have the Soxly had this much free payroll and such a desperate need fmarquee pact bats? Sure history indicates one thing, but this isn't the White Sox of the past 20 years who had some combinations of Frank Thomas, Robin Ventura, Ray Durham, Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, Paul Konerko, Jermaine Dye, and so forth. This White Sox team is one of the sorriest offensive teams in at least my history of watching the Sox. To say that the White Sox aren't going to spend money on impact offensive bats in free agency and to use "history" as the reasoning is absurd in my mind. If anything, history shows the White Sox are willing to spend money on impact bats in free agency when they need to, as they showed that in 2010 with Dunn (needed a power hitting lefty to replace Thome) and in 1997 with Belle (needed a power bat in the OF). I'm not saying the Sox will spend the money, no one knows whats going to happen, but if anything I'd say "history" points to the Sox signing at least one impact bat. Or perhaps more relevant to this conversation, using a chunk of change to sign a bunch of midlevel free agents to patch multiple holes. People are getting too caught up in one marquee free agent. Assuming we spend it, I would much rather have 15 million of flexibility than use it on one pitcher off a major injury who has been nonexistent to terrible for three seasons.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) We have gone after plenty, I am sure some here are still crazed about the Torii Hunter saga. So one guy who took a lot more money is plenty? QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) Players appear to prefer to play for other teams, it has been that way for a long time. Free agents have passed up more money from the Sox to sign elsewhere. ... QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) The Sox had to significantly overpay Dunn and Belle to get them on board. Not really for Dunn. He turned down a three year contract from the Nats and signed with us because of the fourth year we offered. It was an overpay certainly later, but not at the time. Hell people here were ecstatic with it. QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) The Sox had to trade for Peavy twice before they could get him before finally Scott Linebrink talked him into accepting the trade. Jake Peavy wasn't a free agent. This wasn't a case of us being able to offer him more money. It was us or the only MLB town he knew for the same price. Funny you mention it though, he did sign with the Sox as a very soon to be free agent for what was seen as a very friendly contract for us. QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) In addition there is no real quality free agents for the Sox to pursue. Cano will get re-signed, Ellsbury, Morales, and Choo are Boras clients, are Carlos Beltran and Mike Napoli the saviors for this franchise? Are you saying John Danks for equal value is the savior of our franchise? Oh boy. Seriously, there's no need to spend it all in one place. If you do and it's the right fit, fine. But really, why are we still wasting out time with this conversation? Nobody is going to take Danks' contract off our hands. And again, there's a very good reason for that.