Dam8610

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 11:05 PM) Man, it'd be nice if some of the people here actually tried to answer questions and didn't just make smart-ass remarks. When did I ever say Benintendi and Devers were nowhere near enough? I'd be thrilled with that return, and I always would have been. Piece #6 in a Chris Sale trade doesn't mean much to me. I care about the headliners and if those are solid, I'm going to be happy. And TaylorStSox, maybe I'm a little skeptical about the competence of a FO that once gave us Avisail Garcia as a centerpiece. But I appreciate your attempt a wise-ass remark nonetheless. There have been trades in the past where the throw in guy/guys have been the ones who made the deal valuable. The more players you get for Sale, the more likely it is you're going to get value out of the deal.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 10:59 PM) I like your point and many on here agree with that avenue. Stryker's point is also a common one here and I agree more with that route. Chris f***ing Sale. We need a young superstar at least. A team is trading for CFS because they want to win the World Series. Gotta giiiiiiiive I understand what you're saying, but at some point you have to realize that these teams are overvaluing those young, cost controlled premier position hitters and go a different route. If they won't give up the top guy, or won't give you much beyond them, then go a different route that gets you more value.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 10:36 PM) The reported Nats deal seems pretty risky. I feel Robles is pretty far away to be considered a major piece & Giolito could end up being comparable to Chris Sale at some point, but that's obviously best case! Where is the SURE THING in this trade or at least the appearance of great odds in our favor? Plus this is a nobrainer for the Nats since it doesn't hurt them now whatsoever. I don't want the Sox to be on the other end of a nobrainer. The "quantity of quality" is where the White Sox would win. If Giolito and Robles are the headliners, there better be 4-6 others coming with them. A couple more quality, near-ready guys (Lopez, Fedde maybe?) and a few lottery tickets that have tools you like and you think you can develop (NO HITTERS WITH WEAK HIT TOOLS!), and this trade could be the feeder of the eventual competitor we're looking for on the South Side.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 06:11 PM) Hey guys, Nite from Oak Lawn; first time caller, longtime listener. One deal I think they should make is Robertson for Soler if the Cubs are willing. They have a logjam in the OF, Soler needs to play everyday, Cubs need a closer, but don't want to break the bank on the Jansen/Chapmans of the world. To me, it makes too much sense. I'll hang up and listen. No trades with the Cubs, especially not shoring up their major weakness for Avi Garcia 2.0.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 07:23 PM) Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeyman 1m1 minute ago Manhattan, NY hear pirates want top OF prospect robles plus a top young SP (giolito, lopez, ross presumably would fit) in Cutch package And for the love of god, can we spell McCutchen's name correctly in this thread title? If that's McCutchen's price, they will not touch Sale without Turner coming to Chicago.

QUOTE (Sleepy Harold @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 03:17 PM) Link Bob Nightengale @BNightengale GMs predict: Two most aggressive buyers at winter meetings will be #Astros, #Nats; two most aggressive sellers will be #Whitesox, #Tigers. nothing really new, but hey it's news i guess. Is it just me, or do the Tigers intentionally make moves in a pattern designed to make everything more difficult for the White Sox?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 11:02 AM) Didn't see it in here, but new CBA is going to get rid of the All Star game driving home field advantage. I keep seeing this. What's the new determinant?

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 04:27 AM) That Trump University education keeps paying dividends, doesn't it? Go figure out the difference between owning a sports franchise and owning a business. That kindergarten horse manure doesn't hold up. Wow, I must've struck a nerve. Didn't know you were so sensitive about your rides down the Wrigley urinal troughs. If you haven't figured out simple concepts yet, such as that sports franchises are businesses and the market and economic competition are huge driving factors in the degree of success of a sports franchise, then perhaps you should stop playing in the horse manure, go back to kindergarten and learn a few things.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 02:35 PM) Serious question for you "don't trade with the cubs" people. Has there ever been evidence to suggest the city can't support two winning baseball teams? You spend so much time citing business competition when 1) there have been multiple instances where the city has supported two winning baseball teams 2) the MLB is a franchised based model which allows the Sox to survive in concert with the Cubs. The only thing that the White Sox need to worry about is winning. The fans show up when they win. It is financially and operationally irresponsible to leave out a team in a different league as a trade partner. In a sense, it is NOTHING like dealing with a divisional rival, as their success is tied to our failure. That is not the case with the Cubs. Simple economics. Say a person, let's call him "Soxtalk poster Deadpool", spends $250 on something Cubs related (gear, tickets to a game, concessions at the game, a ride down the urinal trough at Wrigley, whatever). Now "Soxtalk poster Deadpool" does not have that $250 anymore, and cannot spend it on White Sox related things. The Cubs existence took the possibility of the White Sox getting "Soxtalk poster Deadpool"'s $250. They may not have gotten it anyway, but now there's a 0% chance instead of a >0% chance.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 09:39 PM) Maybe this whole thing is being overblown. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/11/29/whi...l-some-context/ It likely is, but that doesn't make for good "bash the FO" material. I can see both sides of the argument here. Using them for leverage is not a bad idea, but other GMs aren't stupid, they know the White Sox are unlikely to deal with the Cubs and vice versa, so it's not really that much leverage. At the same time, Hoyer is absolutely right that he'd have to pay a premium to get what he wants from the White Sox, because as much as the "maturity crowd" and "Chicago fans" here don't want to admit it, the Cubs succeeding is bad for the White Sox from a pure business perspective. I'll give them that the degree of bad depends on how well the White Sox are doing, but even if the two teams were the two best in baseball, having another successful team in your market limits your access to potential revenue streams.

I don't think they should've taken it to the extreme they did, but if Theo or Jed called, Hahn's response should've been something along the lines of, "You can have Sale, you just have to give us Bryant, Contreras, Russell, and Schwarber." If they don't hang up the phone at that point, listen to what they have to say, and if they aren't sending twice the value you think you could get from anyone else, go get it from someone else.

If they're rebuilding, why not take Evans? He's the type of "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks" move that could either net you a nice bench piece, a decent ML starter, or potentially one or two decent lottery tickets down the road.

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 07:34 AM) What STYLE of baseball do you believe is the way to go in 2017 & beyond? This is a good question, something to which every front office should give a lot of thought (though it appears ours hasn't with it's mishmash cast of talent). Implementing an answer to this question involves implementing an organization-wide philosophy on how to win baseball games, one that should be ingrained from the summer leagues and rookie ball all the way through Chicago. So, the question, then, is what is to be valued by the organization, and how do they acquire it? If I am answering this question, I would look at the game from an analytical perspective on a very basic level. The objective of a baseball game is to score more runs than your opponent within nine 3 out innings. Technically, the amount of runs that can be scored by a team is limitless. A team that hits well enough could, in theory, score 50 or more runs in a given game. The constraint on this, however, is the outs. Thus, I would focus my organization-wide philosophy on controlling the outs. In pitchers, I would seek, in order of importance, high strikeout rates, high soft contact rates, high GB%, and low walk rates. In position players, I would seek, in order of importance, elite defensive ability, high BB rates, low K rates, and high LD rates. I would also ask my development staff to try to develop players in a way that would produce these traits, and only hire coaches and managers who felt that these traits were key to success, so that anyone coming through my development pipeline will hear the same philosophies from rookie ball to Chicago. The more you constrain your opponent's ability to score, and the more difficult you make it for your opponent to constrain your ability to score, the more likely it is that you will win. Control the outs, control the game.

Anyone in need of a slugging 3B? I'm looking at you, Friedman.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) Matt, Jed here. We have interest in Odorizzi and Archer. What do you think? Make me an offer. You've got a pretty deep farm, so we should definitely be able to do some business.

QUOTE (South Sider @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 02:21 PM) Who would you need to have for Archer? -DD I'm thinking something based around Benintendi and Devers. Wow me.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) No deal. Come down on your price. What would you offer for Chris Archer?

Several players can move from Tampa. Let us know who you're interested in and we'll talk. - Matt Silverman

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 12:13 AM) Even if his potential is realized I doubt you could find a better return than Calhoun and Lux. If Puig becomes a mid 20s 6 WAR CF again you'll get a better return than Calhoun and Lux.

If Boston: Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, Kopech, Groome If Atlanta: Swanson, Inciarte, Albies, Newcomb, Blair If Yankees: Sanchez, Frazier, Torres, Andujar, Sheffield, Tate If Washington: Giolito, Turner, Robles, Lopez, Cole, Fedde If Dodgers (w/Puig): Urias, Puig, Bellinger, DeLeon, Alvarez If Dodgers (w/o Puig): Urias, Bellinger, DeLeon, Alvarez, Calhoun, Lux I know, "not realistic", but this is the type of return the White Sox need for Sale. I intentionally did not include Houston because my hope is they'll build a package around Bregman for Q. If all of these posts were on the table, I'd have a tough time choosing between BOS and NYY.

I think people are being overly critical on this front. Let's address the issues: 1) The White Sox have a poor track record of developing position players. What the White Sox have, in my opinion, is a history of chasing athletes instead of baseball players, and a complete inability to convert those lottery tickets. The moral of the story, to me at least, is go after baseball players, not athletes. This is a strategy the team has recently started pursuing, with excellent dividends so far in the 2016 draft class. So, if the White Sox are going to pursue big name trades, they need to continue this strategy. No 40 contact, 80 power and speed OFs, those will not develop well in the White Sox system. Instead, get more Adam Eaton and Alex Call types to go along with the headliners of these deals. 2) The White Sox are going to get fleeced on these trades. I really can't see this happening. They've set their price incredibly high on Sale, and I think they will do the same with any other player they're looking to trade. You can't overstate the importance of the market in this case. Almost every asset the White Sox could trade is an asset whose supply in the free agent market is either nonexistent or extremely limited. Further, with the new playoff system in baseball, the list of sellers is extremely thin this time of year, when the best overall chance to enhance your strategy and direction as a franchise exists. This means you'll have 20+ teams looking to get better. The White Sox not being one of them gives them tremendous leverage. Add in that several of the players the White Sox have available are players that have the potential to give a team 4-7 WAR at an extremely team friendly rate, and teams should be fighting each other to get these players, meaning the return for the White Sox will only improve. Also, look at Rick Hahn's track record. The trades he has gotten the most value out of have been rebuilding type moves, like Eaton for Santiago. This, presumably, is his best negotiating ground, at least based on his track record. We should also remember that in addition to whatever players the White Sox are able to get in trades, part of the built in return on trading away several of these players is playing time for players that may not have gotten a chance otherwise who could then develop into average-good ML players who could either be flipped for more prospects or used on a competitor, and the high draft picks the team will get from the decline in record. That's not to say that the White Sox shouldn't maximize their return in a heavy seller's market, but even if Sale nets (for example) Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, Rodriguez, Swihart, remember that that's still not all the Sox will be getting as a net impact of that trade. 3) There is a high degree of uncertainty to a rebuild, prospects fail all the time. This is a valid concern, however, consider the alternative. What has proven certain over the last 3 years is that the White Sox have some elite, upper echelon talent, and they seem to be incapable, for whatever reason, of surrounding it with a competitive team. Blame whoever you'd like for that, but at this point, I'll take an uncertain rebuild over the certainty of the front office not doing enough to surround our elite talent with a competitive team. At some point, if one way of doing things isn't working, you have to try a different way. If that doesn't happen for the White Sox now, when will it? Further, if they wait, how much longer will that extend the rebuild process? Do you really want to watch a crappy on field product for the next decade, especially while that other team in town has incredible success? I know I don't.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Nov 14, 2016 -> 10:33 PM) I thought Urias was offered at the deadline? http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/dodgers-would...-talks/?0p19G=c

I'd try to get Cespedes, Ramos, and Walker unless going full rebuild.

In other news, water is wet.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 11:27 AM) The JR estate is no doubt in trust, which means capital gains or estate taxes do not apply Huh? That just means it doesn't go to probate court. If Reinsdorf dies, you can be certain that his heirs will be getting a call from the IRS, because his estate has to be well over the exemption amount. Also, capital gains tax would not occur for his heirs unless/until they sold the team, at which point, they would be able to claim their stepped up basis against the sale price.