iamshack

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 19, 2016 -> 10:05 PM) The amount of whining after every play by Paul, Griffin and Wade is just insane Wade with his hand-waving of every call is obnoxious, but I just don't get why the NBA refs have to go so bats*** crazy for the home team.

The NBA has always been frustrating when you are playing on the road. Not sure why it has to be that way, either.

This is just stupid.

Yeah, I mean I guess the point is that if a significant part of Bregman's value is tied to his ability at SS, then you either need to be willing to move Anderson off SS or else value Bregman as 2B or 3B. You don't want to hurt his value or overpay for him if he doesn't represent that value to you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2016 -> 07:59 AM) Wouldn't you just move Bregman to 3b? He's already being effective there for the 'Stros. Ahh. I see, shows you how much I have seen him. Is 3rd his long-term projected landing place? Or is that just because he is on the Astros at the moment?

So fairly simple question...if we do receive a guy like Bregman or Swanson that is a ss, what do we do with Anderson? Can he play CF?

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 05:16 PM) Deal. Write it up and send it to the commish. Approved! Great work guys...you made my Friday entertaining.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 01:13 PM) Has my (ATL) trade for Arrieta been approved by the league? Approved.

I think Hi8is needs to be more characters...

Starting to get emails for conferences discussing the future of US environmental regulations and policies under the Trump administration.

Very interesting stuff...what I would say is when you start looking at the big time players in politics, business, entertainment, sports, etc...the elite basically...they ALL know one another or have these six degrees of separation type of relationships. If anyone thinks for one minute that these types of deals aren't being brokered that screw us all, you may as well just remain blissfully ignorant.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 06:44 AM) I started listening to a few different podcasts recently, and listened to the Joe Rogan experience yesterday, and his guests are Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson. Anyone interested in ancient civilizations, comet impacts, egypt, extinction events, you need to listen to this podcast. It is absolutely fascinating Graham Hancock is the man

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:34 PM) I love that you bolded that post. When I was writing that I almost wanted to bold it because I get so tired of the argument, well, the Cubs had this or that or we don't want to be the Pirates or the Royals for 20 years. All of those things are true and if our scouts and front office miss, they miss. End of the day there is a bit of luck to all of these deals, especially when it comes to prospects, but hey, the last eight years have sucked and we should have a pretty damn good starting point if we do get big packages for a few of these guys. Agreed. I guess what we are fighting is this focus placed on the surplus value of players who have hardly had a cup of coffee in the mlb yet. To really get any kind of quantity, we may have to structure the deal with more risk in it than we are necessarily comfortable with.

Yeah, I hope they are both light too, but I'm trying to respect what some of the analytics folks are saying in regards to the value of the top tier prospects.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) I like the Red Sox top prospects better then the Dodgers top prospects (in terms of elite, more because I like the fact that Bos are position players). On the flipside, I like the Dodgers depth better, in the sense that we could deal Q without getting Urias (obviously Seager is not on the board), yet the rest of their top prospects could still be in play and they have a ton of depth, that I think would be a great fit after pulling a high quality package (maybe a little less quantity) from a team like Boston. In general, I don't trade Sale without getting two elite prospects plus quantity. Q I could trade without getting an elite prospect (top 5-10 in all of baseball), but a ton of very good prospects (lots of top 100 guys, including one or two top 50). So when I think of the various teams, Braves / Nats / Red Sox are better fit when it comes to having two "elite" prospects. Dodgers have elite and Urias might be the best of all of them, but I view the secondary elite guy from each of the other teams as stronger and in a Sale trade, I want two elite (or one already existing good ML player) and then still another couple very good prospects. So for example, if Boston goes Moncada / Benitendi, you get Swihart (I think he is a given in any deal with Boston as the final piece) plus one of there other good prospects and then maybe a flier or something. Dream would be Devers / Kopech / plus the two elites from Boston, I just don't see that going that far (but If I'm Kenny / Rick, that is what I'm trying to swing and it is why in the whole form of discussion you are also mentioning names like JBJ and Betts as it is always a negotiation). With Dodgers, I see Puig or Pederson as well as Austin Barnes as guys that I want to have to go with top prospects. For example, if I got Q, I'd be pushing for a package built around non Urias top pitching prospects plus Pederson (priority over Puig, but you might give there and get an Austin Barnes). Again, this are what I'd ideally be looking to get...reality is everything is fluid. But if in two deals you could get Benitendi / Moncada / A couple top pitching prospects (Bos / LAD) / Pederson / Catching Prospect (Barnes or Swihart)....you are talking about a lot of guys who have ceilings and can immediately fill out your roster with long term potential improvements. There will certainly be growing pains, but that is a heck of a lot of talent infused to the everyday lineup. Rotation will obviously be a lot more raw, but you have new prospects coming in plus Rodon / Fulmer / Alec Hansen. Collins as another position prospect in the nearer term as well as Burdi. I think this is basically the wet dream of the majority of us. Let's assume though that it simply isn't possible. Let's say you had to choose between these deals for Sale to the Red Sox and Q to the Dodgers: Sale to the Red Sox: 1) Benintendi/Devers or 2) Benintendi/Kopech/Groome/Swihart Q to the Doders: 1) DeLeon/Bellinger or 2) DeLeon/Barnes/Lux/Puig Which would you choose?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 12:02 PM) Here's the choice you have to make: If you could even get them to trade Trea Turner - you are not getting more than that. Maybe some INTL prospects or A filler, but you are not getting more than that. So the question is whether you break out to the higher risk, high quality prospects below them to get a larger breadth trade to create that depth of talent we lack. To touch on the "debate" ss2k and I were having yesterday morning, I do agree with the notion that you want to use the Sale trade to get back some quantity, as we have a depth issue. However, you simply also cannot afford to trade a talent like Sale for a handful of "everyday" mlb players. Depth is important, but it isn't so difficult to acquire that you make it your main priority in a Sale trade. Therefore, in my opinion, you've got to balance two somewhat competing considerations: 1) I need to get back high-impact players - all-star caliber type players; and 2) I need to add depth - I need to fill more than one hole here. There are a number of ways to do this, but the way I see NOT to do this, unless we are misjudging the market, is to ask for another team's mlb-proven cost-controlled star (Turner, Seager, Betts, etc). While it would be great to have a guy like that, it likely just results in the Oakland A's scenario, where you are forever trading your cost-controlled high-impact performers before they become cost-prohibitive but never really improving your team's chances of winning. What we'd like to do is really to obtain 1-2 prospects with high upside, but still far enough way that you aren't paying full freight for them - the cost you pay prices in the risk. This is your Michael Kopech, your Rafael Devers, your Yadier Alvarez, your Alex Verdugo, etc. In addition to these 2 prospects, you'd like the centerpiece of the deal to carry far less risk, knowing full well that you are paying for that low risk. This is where a guy like Benintendi or Urias work. Ultimately, it's going to come down to a case-by-case basis of who your scouts like the best, but I subscribe to the theory of balancing high-impact with the need for depth.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 12:56 PM) still ^ I thought it was a legit rumor but it's just a writer speculating? The difference between those two things is very thin reed at this point.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 10:37 AM) Lester $150 million Zobrist $56 million Heyward $184 million Lackey $32 million not to mention Edwin Jackson $52 million. Over how many years, Dick?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 10:34 AM) They have traded for prospects before. Eaton and Quentin were really good. Molina, Castro, Davidson, Avi....kind of scary. When did we trade several established all-star caliber players for prospects before?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 10:28 AM) If they do it the Cubs way, they are going to need about $500 million. If they aren't going to spend a lot more money, they aren't going to win consistently any way you slice it. How many teams with average payrolls are good every year? If they do what the Cubs way? Rebuild? $500 million over how many years?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 08:53 AM) The fact is, if you need an ace pitcher after all these acquisitions, it's going to cost a ton of money. If you still need an OF with Adam Eaton's skills and performance, it's going to cost a ton of money. I get having to trade some guys, but they cannot blow it, and an even trade really doesn't do much either does it? To improve, the trades have to be won. Dick, I fully appreciate what you're saying...but what is the alternative?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 08:13 AM) Yes. The top 5 or 6 of the White Sox roster matches up pretty well with just about every team. Fair enough...so now we trade the top 5 or 6 and the goal is to change that to "the top 9-10 of the White Sox roster matches up pretty well with just about every team." Then you STILL need to fill out the rest of the roster through intelligent signings, the draft, other trades occurring over the next few years. If you guys think you are going to construct a full roster of quality mlb players based on these trades, and magically we're going to be competing next year, you've got another thing coming.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 07:49 AM) The consolation prize is Chris Sale. Yes he is, but I think if you want Turner, that means you really limit the remainder of the package.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 07:46 AM) Yeah, both are basically major league ready, that is for sure. I just don't see Turner going anywhere. It's one thing for a GM to liquidate 3-4 of his top 10 prospects for a guy like Sale. It's another thing completely to send off a young player the general fanbase has already latched onto as a star of the future.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Nov 15, 2016 -> 07:01 PM) I do not like any of their position player prospects outside of Bellinger and they lack high-end arms outside of Alvarez, you could call De Leon a high end arm but I think that is a reach. With that being said, I can take Bellinger (who I just started feverishly researching) and Alvarez but that is nowhere near enough for Sale. They're not going to give up Seager, so they would need to get a third team involved. Urias?