iamshack

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 04:12 PM) Pick a trade. What would Aroldis Chapman drawn 10 years ago in a deadline deal? What would Andrew Miller have brought back? Neither brings back nearly as many prospects back then. A pitcher of Chris Sale's caliber, at his age, with his contract situation has basically almost never been traded before.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) It takes more and more of them than ever to get a deal done. 10 years ago, A Giolito would have gotten Eaton alone. Not because of the way Giolito is viewed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 04:04 PM) It isn't the break up. It is not learning why you are forced to sell in the first place. I can't believe they didn't learn this lesson. Cmon man, you just keep going further off the rails. You're on tilt. Take a break and save yourself from future ridicule.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) Eh. I think one thing we have learned this winter is that on the trade market, prospects are worth less than ever before. It seems like it takes more and more of them to get deals done. These guys have to turn into actual star major leaguers before they will have real value. What? Oh no you did not.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) I'm surprised by ss2k5 calling this a failure but I think we need to wait. Our rebuild will not work regardless if the only contributors in 2018 were from trades and not our own development. Best news of day is bucket saying there is a big change internally. They are finally serious about something. They need to be good at it. Or else we will just be where we are now, getting lucky on 4 guys and garbage all around it. Hahn mentioned in both press conferences this would be "an extended process." We've already seen things change in terms of our draft and development, and now we're seeing an absolute liquidation of mlb talent to infuse the farm system with the kind of talent to compete with anyone. I have absolutely no idea what there is to be upset about. This is not the breakup of the '98 Bulls. This is breaking up "mediocrity" for the promise and hope of sustained success. I respect ss2k, but as he has often said to others who get frustrated and threaten to quit following the team, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

QUOTE (Tony @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) For Mike: @BNightengale 30s31 seconds ago The #WhiteSox kept asking for #RedSox 3B Rafael Dever in Chris Sale trade, but the RedSox refused. Compromise: Victor Diaz and Luis Basabe. Clearly telling Boston the Nats are giving me their #1/2/3/6...Boston smart enough not to budge.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 02:30 PM) The idea was supposed to be fix the problems in the organization. They didn't and they have used up two of our three chances to do so. We didn't get quantity in either deal. This is a worst case scenario. I must say, I give you credit for staying consistent in re: your depth argument.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 02:17 PM) While the sox need positional players, this seems like a damn good haul for Adam. Totally selling high-which the Sox haven't done for years. The Sox still have Q, Robertson, Jose, Frazier, et al to add offense. Jones!

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 02:07 PM) How are you guys disappointed that we got the #4 and #38 prospects for Adam Eaton? We sold about as high as possible on him. + But 6 war! ?

QUOTE (Tony @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) Good. Keep it going. Burn it to the ground. +++++

QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:58 PM) What does this mean? Byron Kerr ‏@masnKerr 3m3 minutes ago I'm hearing it's not straight up trade "multiple players" for Eaton says source https://twitter.com/masnKerr It means more than 1 guy for Eaton

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:52 PM) Without Turner or Robles, we have to be talking about a quantity type of deal, otherwise I am going to be pretty pissy about the return. Even if it was Giolito/Lopez?

I want Neuse and Stevenson along with Lopez.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) No, confirms that we're in [insert phrase], not that it's done "In talks to acquire." That usually means advanced stages.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) How many of those guys are around? He's averaged 4.2 fWAR the past 3 years, and it's been rising. He's signed for $38 million over the next 5 seasons. If other teams don't want to value that for what it's worth, the Sox can keep him and be fine with the best RF in town for $145 million less. Yeah, the trophy for that is really big I heard.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:49 PM) You should read the thread again. The debate started because we were talking about Eaton's value now vs Heyward's value then. They were compared because much of their WAR value is in their defense. My position is that Heyward was far more valuable at the time because Heyward has better tools and athleticism. It's certainly not unheard of for a an athletically gifted baseball player to continue to develop at the age of 26. The Cubs were willing to take a risk because of his upside. Eaton does not possess that upside. I agree with you. Heyward's hurt himself last year, but if you were to put them both on the market again before the season, the delta in the contracts would not be commensurate with their WAR.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:23 PM) It's light because I am trying to come up with a reasonable proposal (not fan driven monster packages) No team will back up the truck and dump the entire farm for one or two players not named Trout, Betts, Bryant or Seager A reasonable proposal or a proposal that is purposefully light because it's coming from just one org? Quintana - #2 Robles/#4 Fedde/#8 Stevenson/#14 Severino Eaton - #3 Lopez/#7 Neuse/#11 Banks/#30 Reetz This leaves then with their #1, 5, 6, 9 & 10 guys still intact. Does it hurt them? Yes. Are they much better now? Yes. And guess what? If they lose Harper in two years, they can move Q and Eaton then to restock much of that system.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:18 PM) Compared to Jason Heyward? Is this even up for debate? Heyward signed as a 25 year old with good established offensive production and the plus tools to project increased production. He wasn't signed because of his defensively inflated WAR. Eaton will be traded as an established 28 year old without near the upside to project. He's a hell of a player, but his some of his numbers are smoke and mirrors. GM's aren't dumb. Yeah, I tend to buy this a bit more than the perennial 6 WAR story.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:10 PM) For Eaton alone? Yes, they have the prospects. But for Quintana + Eaton they do not have the pieces to cover the surplus value without leaving their farm in shambles That, and I don't trust us to be able to milk enough value out of one team's farm to justify that sort of a trade. Washington is likely going to offer something like: Giolito/Robles + Fedde/Neuse or Stevenson/Severino for Quintana and Eaton I would not accept that if I am the White Sox First of all, let Rizzo worry about his farm. Second, why that offer? That's way light and we all know it. Why so light?

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:07 PM) We watched Eaton play gold glove caliber RF last and he was more dependable at the plate than Heyward, especially in clutch situations. He is a better base runner than Heyward and can lead off for a team. He is under team control for 5 years at a reasonable cost. No, we aren't underestimating his value. I said the return, not his value to us. Not sure what that has to do with Heyward either.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) It's the only way it makes sense. Q+Eaton without Turner on the table isn't happening unless the Sox pull in Giolito, Robles, Lopez and way more. I think you guys are overestimating what the return may be for Eaton. I still think the Nats can do this without Turner.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:12 AM) Gotta be Giolito and Turner there is no other package that could be close. I think they could certainly do it without Turner. Question is whether they'd gut their system like that.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) I don't care what position a prospect plays at this point What we need to be looking for is talent above anything. Most SS could play OF, 2B or 3B if needed We are looking to improve farm system quality and depth Yes, they could, but for guys nearly ready, I don't want to pay the ss price for a guy I have to push off of ss. That's why I say I wonder if you target guys further away or at other, often less-costly positions.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:53 AM) I think it is moreso that so many of these guys have been the best player on their team their entire life. Generally, if you're RH, and you're the best player on your team, you're at SS if you're not on the mound. So most guys have SS backgrounds, and then generally get moved off of it as they go to college and then the pros. I think you're both correct. But what do we do with these guys if we acquire them and they are just about MLB ready? It makes me think I'm targeting other close guys or else some guys farther away, tbh.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:51 AM) Trading a guy who is an ace with 4 years of cost control left seems like a pretty risky proposition. I'm open to it, but Q is probably the last of all the guys I'd move. I'd move Eaton, Melky, Robertson, Jones, and Abreu first (again depending on value). Just not sure we have that luxury.