iamshack

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:24 PM) Not necessarily. For example prospects have given no performance at all to the major league team, yet are valued extremely high. They have value to the organization, which is on whose behalf a GM is working.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) With Strasburg, there was little doubt he would be successful so long as he remained healthy. He had TJS not long after finishing his first year up and it'll probably be a miracle if he never has it again. Of course not every prospect comes with the same questions, but look at a guy like Justin Smoak or Gordon Beckham - those guys were thought to be surefire multiple all-stars. I mean, we saw with Beckham after he came up that he looked like a future monster, and he fell into some massive struggles and never recovered. That can always happen. The general point being that there are can't miss prospects that do miss. And there have been a lot of guys who have had absolutely phenomenal careers who were never ranked in the top 100 prospects. It's hard to make a trade like that when you're not forced to, you can see yourself competing while he's under contract, he's going to be a big reason why you're competing, and you can't really see yourself competing without him. Sure, you could conceivably be a competitive team due to trading Chris Sale, but it's far, far likelier that you will be competitive with Chris Sale sooner than without. Agreed. Which is why you need to get more than one of them back, along with some pieces that you are more certain as to their performance.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) If someone wants to pay the price I have in mind then they can feel free to offer it, I just don't think any team will believe it's a value trade back to them. Well, to your point, a team that trades for Sale isn't likely going to be getting much organizational value, other than the value Sale provides relative to his contract. They would most likely be getting value for their major league roster, however.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:03 PM) Shack, I understand your perspective, I really do, but no matter what trade offers are out there they most likely wouldn't be in the Sox favor. The Sox would be taking the majority of risk, or if we went after a variety of major league players we would be sacrificing talent. If you're trading Sale you are trading him for a proven, cost-controlled, young MLB star. How many of those are out there, and how many are as cheap as Sale? I would listen to Trout +, the plus for the difference in their contracts. That's how valuable Sale is. Understood. And as a result of taking the risk, there needs to be a corresponding (or greater) potential reward. Is someone else willing to pony up the deal that makes it happen? Doubtful. But that doesn't mean you refuse to listen.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:50 PM) I can see a legitimate argument that you'd prefer Castro to Russell. But it's still a minimum of Bryant, Soler, Castro, and another guy that's a tier down. And the Cubs would just never do that. I feel like the Cubs would try to pass off Baez as a top tier guy, then include Alcantara and some lower dudes. After intense negotiations, their best offer might be ONE of Bryant/Soler + a couple third tier guys. Or maybe one of Bryant/Soler + Castro to clear their SS logjam. I'm sure the Cubs would probably rather keep Russell, but who knows. No one is saying that the deal exists out there, just that we shouldn't close our minds to it simply because we don't think anyone is willing to pay the price.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:40 PM) He's got value as a part of a total package, but he's not a guy that "gets me listening" on Chris Sale. No, that is obviously Bryant. But you've got to have SOMETHING that at the very least, you know you are going to get out of this if the worst case happens, all the prospects bust.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) With his performance the last couple years, he's a decent player but he's sitting on a long term guaranteed contract and doesn't sell me very hard on being a centerpiece. He's been a 3 war player basically 3 times already at age 24...he's exactly the type of player that should be one of the centerpieces.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) Like who? They don't have anyone except Rizzo, and that's the last place on the diamond we need help. Notice I selected nothing but advanced, upper minors guys that have maintained their upside. And, individually, they all have probably less than a 50/50 shot to reach their ceilings. Collectively, you feel like one probably will. Also, please don't tag me for "downplaying prospects," as I am usually on the other side of that debate. If I'm "downplaying" them, it's only when I'm comparison with what is literally the most ideal possible outcome for them, which is when they turn into superstars the year after signing long-term extension that pay them like bench players. I'm talking about for purposes of this conversation. I am not "tagging" you for anything. Castro has been a relatively valuable player for most of his career. He certainly provides a little bit of certainty in regards to what you are getting. It would be difficult to hang up the phone if names like Castro, Bryant, and Soler were mentioned.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) Do the Cubs have anyone who meets that standard other than Rizzo? Castro.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) At absolute minimum, Bryant + Soler + Russell + Edwards. That's the point where, if it happened, I can squint and see it as good, but I'd still be uneasy. And that's already completely unrealistic from the Cubs' perspective -- they would never even consider it. And no other system in the league can touch that offer. I mean, if we make that trade, we're basically making a play to become what the Cubs are now, except we're in a worse position. See, you keep downplaying prospects, and then selecting only prospects. Why not include someone with a little more certainty in terms of performance?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) Right now, no, because you don't know that Stanton is going to be a guy that hits 500 foot blasts at this point just as we don't know that Justin Smoak is completely bust. If we knew, those teams wouldn't trade those guys and a guy like Chris Sale goes 1st overall in his draft. If we had the foresight to actually see that those guys are doing that, then yes, you would, but we simply don't have that ability. I think that's oversimplifying, but really, the Twins have a couple of top 5 or top 10 prospects in the entire game between Sano and Buxton, but Sano was already showing cracks in his armor upon being promoted to AA with a very high K rate (even at an incredibly young age) and then he didn't play this year while Buxton, when he wasn't dealing with injuries, really, really struggled this year. I would say Bryant would have to be apart of a trade for Sale, but the Cubs probably feel he is capable of providing up to 24-30 WAR over the next 6 years (he's projected for 4 WAR based on his minor league numbers as a rookie this season). And even then, there's no such thing as a guarantee from a prospect. That's why it gets so impossibly tricky. If, gun to my head, I had to make a deal with the Cubs right now, I'd probably ask for Castro, Soler/Bryant, CJ Edwards, and probably 2-3 other riskier prospects (Ramirez, Underwood, Baez maybe?) and there's no reason for the Cubs to make that deal. That's why no deal would happen. I could be swayed one way or another, but it's never going to get close enough to make it worthwhile discussion. But there were certainly some guys in there that were more likely to succeed than others...for instance, Posey and Strasburg, there was very, very little doubt about whether those guys were going to turn into very good mlb players. Of course, you make a good point about looking back with hindsight, but let's not pretend that every prospect comes with the same questions, because they do not. Some seem to be infinitely more projectable than others.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:36 PM) None. I would want at least one established star hitter as a starting point. Well that is why I said pieces and not prospects. But if you don't like any of their hitters because of the fit, that is understandable I guess.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) The value of the assets is 100% meaningless. It is the performance of the players that matters. Well obviously the value of an asset is tied to the asset's performance.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) I don't think any of this is true. I worry more about the fact that the White Sox have 5 years of control of Abreu, Sale, and Quintana and that trading them sets that back. I would imagine it's close to 10-20% of prospects meet their potential, another 20-30% find some utility at the MLB level, and 50-60% bust. I mean, here's the BA top 20 from 2010: 1. Jason Heyward 2. Stephen Strasburg 3. Mike Stanton 4. Jesus Montero 5. Brian Matusz 6. Desmond Jennings 7. Buster Posey 8. Pedro Alvarez 9. Neftali Feliz 10. Carlos Santana 11. Dustin Ackley 12. Alcides Escobar 13. Justin Smoak 14. Madison Bumgarner 15. Dominic Brown 16. Starlin Castro 17. Martin Perez 18. Jeremy Hellickson 19. Aaron Hicks 20. Logan Morrison http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prosp...010/269546.html Those were the 20 best minor league players in the game going into the 2010 season. How many of those guys are stars 5 years later? How many are regulars? How many have turned into utility players or relievers? How many have busted? The Sox wouldn't even be getting 4 or 5 of these guys. They'd be getting 4 or 5 or 6 of the top 100 or top 150 or top 200. The odds that they get good players out of HALF of those players is incredibly small. In the event the Sox do not trade Chris Sale (which is likely), they are betting that Chris Sale, who is already a 5-6 WAR Cy Young candidate every year, is going to provide more value along with the other players the Sox would acquire otherwise versus Sale's replacement, the package of players they brought in for Sale and that difference between those players. I'm not going to dispute that Xavier Bogaerts is a more valuable player than Alexei Ramirez overall, but I am going to say that the White Sox with Chris Sale and Alexei Ramirez is better than the White Sox without those guys. Really, how are the Sox going to replace that value long-term? They have to hope that Owens or De La Rosa or Webster or whatever pitcher(s) they got could replicate that, and it's very likely one or two of those guys end up as bullpen pitchers. Following the 2017 season, it makes a lot more sense to explore trade options for those guys. Right now it makes very, very little sense. You can keep searching and looking up top 100 lists from years gone by, but there are a ton of guys who had all kinds of promise that busted. Understood. There are maybe 1-3 teams that could get in the room. Cubs, Twins, Houston? What if you could get Stanton, Strasburg, Posey, or the like, plus a semi-established high-ceiling player, plus another pedigreed prospect, and a vet or two? You wouldn't explore that?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:32 PM) I think you're both underestimating the bust rate. Further, even among the ones that don't bust, few end up reaching their ceilings. This estimate is way too rosy: "Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures." 50% of notable prospects turn into what you hoped? I think it's more like 20% Let me ask you this... What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand. Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000. Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway. But it isn't random; it's not like we have never seen the players. It isn't like we don't select the players. It isn't like we don't ultimately get to choose whether to accept or deny. I understand there is uncertainty in the finished product you will receive, and that will drive the offers and the process.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) Right, but I'm saying there is no available asset that is equal or greater to Sale. The amount of of lottery ticket prospects you'd have to compile to be comfortable trading Sale is not a reasonable amount. I get that everyone's saying "you have to be blown away," but you're NOT going to be. A team would have to make a dumb deal to be competitive, and they won't. So, in the universe we're in, there isn't a deal that exists where it makes to trade Sale. I guess I just don't think it's fun to think about stuff that never has a chance to happen, and maybe I should stay out of these threads and let people have their fun. There is a combination of assets that is though. You may be right, it doesn't matter regardless, since neither of us makes the decisions.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) I think with a little kid, I would be more willing to take a risk that maybe the gun is fake or if it is real the kid doesn't even know what he's doing with it. I think I would rather take the risk of getting shot at than to shoot a little kid. I could never live with that. Or you would be dead and your own kids would be without a father. I don't think many cops want to shoot people, and especially not children. But they are put in a position where doing their job and protecting themselves doesn't necessarily line up with doing what they want.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 01:17 PM) You know what, I look at the cop's situation in terms of his having a job to do. I also work for a living and am under contant scrutiny and get yelled at or fired if I do a poor job. I think this cop did a very poor job. I may be wrong. That's how I feel. My bottom line is he is in a dangerous line of work and he didn't need to shoot to kill a 12 year old. It's a more serious line of work than mine, but in judging him before seeing the tape, I think he gets a big, fat FAIL for what happened. At this point in time I think he should definitely find a new line of work. Again, if this proves false when the tape comes out, my bad. I'm going by what I've read which is a dangerous thing to do in the day and age of social media. Greg, the analysis is a bit different in this situation. Keep in mind that if the cop is wrong, he and/or someone else potentially gets shot and/or killed. That influences your decision tremendously.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:46 AM) The key differences are that (a) the Cardinals were already a great team, looking for the best way to stay great, and (b) Pujols was a pending free agent, not a 25 year old star signed for nothing for six year. If Sale was 30 and a free agent, this would be a completely different discussion. Likewise, if the Cardinals were rebuilding and Pujols was 25, they wouldn't have moved him. It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) As bad as they have been at times. If the Saints win that division, they will get a home game. That will be a tough game for a road team to win. Which wouldn't be entirely inequitable since they had to go to Seattle a few years back when Rowand said it was a guaranteed win

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:05 AM) Ok so our current situations is this: we have a handful of star-level players who are controllable and cheap. We can either (a) get rid of them for different players who are controllable and cheap and hopefully will reach star-level or (b) leverage the advantage that those players give us and actually try to win a World Series. If your goal is to win a WS, option B is the only option. Option A is a perpetual cycle of "maybe next year." My point is NOT that you can win by ONLY acquiring assets with surplus value. That's impossible. My point IS that trading Sale or Quintana at this point is a characteristic of option A. There is a point where Sale and Quintana should be traded. That point is somewhere around 2018 in the instance that those players may no longer fit into the plan for the next five years because they are older/less effective/no longer in possession of several years of below-market control. We are ONE year into this current cycle of Hahn building a perpetual winner. We must stay the course. There is no realistic package that we can get for Chris Sale that will bring us closer to the WS than keeping Chris Sale, and we have not given this core a chance to win. It is not time to tear it down. You are oversimplifying this. Ultimately, every player is an asset. The teams that put together the highest sum total of assets within their own particular financial constraints generally have the most sustained success. If you can potentially increase the sum total of your assets by trading any one of your assets, regardless of it's surplus value, it's something one needs to explore. I am not blindly advocating trading Chris Sale or one of the Jose's for a handful of prospects. If you've read my posts on the matter if trading Sale, I'd advocate for at least one high-ceiling talent who has seen some level of sustained success in the mlb, plus some high-ceiling pedigreed prospects, plus an additional veteran or two. Now admittedly, I don't know that any team in baseball would accept those demands - and that's fine - but if one does, I am certainly going to explore it. I'm not going to refuse to trade him because he represents surplus value. This is not a zero sum game here.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) So when do you decide you're in a good position to compete? What does that actually look like? Collecting 25 year old superstars signed to laughably below market extensions IS rebuilding. That's the blueprint! We're one year into a rebuild, and you want to tear it down and rebuild? Do people still actually believe that you can get a whole team of prospects to show up at the exact same time and be a winner? There is no team in the league, at any given time, that cannot expect to compete within five years. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. There is not "one" blueprint. There may be "a" blueprint which has worked recently, but that doesn't make it "the" blueprint. The name of the game is to win the World Series. The name of the game is to build sustained success. While I concede that having players like Sale and Quintana signed to the contracts that they are has extreme value, it has little value if the rest of the roster isn't strong enough to leverage that value into sustained success (as another poster also mentioned). No one is going to disagree with you about Sale and Q being incredibly valuable. But their value is limited by the talent of the whole. While we are moving in the right direction, the talent of the whole still remains our problem here. If we could acquire other players to increase the value of the whole beyond what it would reasonably be with Sale or Q, that is something that needs to be explored. If we could bring back other versions of Sale or Q, that is something that needs to be explored. We can sit and drool over the excess value we're getting from guys like Sale and Q until we've worked ourselves into a frenzy, but it doesn't win us anything. I recognize that the odds of replacing the excess value Sale or Q bring by trading them may be unlikely - and that should be factored into the decision to trade them - but you simply cannot tell me that there is no trade of these players that could make sense for us, because it simply is not true.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:25 AM) ReD Sxo won the WS. So why would the White Sox give someone else a better chance ar a WS? So you don't think the Marlins made out as well? Were the Marlins going to win the World Series that year if they held on to Beckett and Lowell?

You two need to apply your wisdom more productively than this...