Buehrlesque

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) With the trade deadline Friday, I don't see why a decision has to be made on Samardzija tonight. If we lose the next two sell him off, if we win the next two only trade him if you get a great deal. Why base your whole course of action on a two-game stretch? That's 1.2% of the season. What if the Sox win the next two then lose the next four? What if they lose the next two then win the next four? The Sox have now played about 100 games this year. They should make good decisions/trades for both the short- and long-term health of the club regardless of a ridiculously small sample of two games.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:32 AM) I don't know how anyone can really say that there has to be one way to build the team. I want our organization to be flexible. To take advantage of market inefficiencies and to be able to react fluidly to the progress of the major league team to ensure a consistently competitive team. This is not particularly well-achieved with a rigid plan, such as, only assembling prospects, or only assembling free agent veterans. It requires the ability to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves, which I felt like we were trying to do last offseason. I felt like we did a great job of balancing today against tomorrow. I don't feel like any of these contracts will significantly alter our course moving forward. And yet, we provided an opportunity to compete this year if things broke right. The overall key to this is maintaining payroll flexibility through identifying your key contributors early and signing them to club-friendly contracts. Drafting well and scouting internationally. Many organizations have shown being active with free agents or in the trade market and utilizing an intelligent development plan are not mutually exclusive. I think we've begun to go down that road and I'm pretty pleased with our course, last offseason included. Great post!

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:16 AM) Well said. I'm also not sure about the quality of this particular chance at the playoffs. This is a steep uphill climb and no prospects should be mortgaged for that. Also, regarding Upton, he stopped hitting as soon as the calendar flipped to June. If you don't think LaRoche can get his act together, then Upton's no solution either. Yeah, that's a key. Teams shouldn't flip their sh** just because their mediocre team has a chance at the playoffs. There will be times now where teams "technically" still in the race decide to ease off the accelerator. That being said, the Sox could go a lot of ways this year. If they find a can't-pass-up package for Samardzija, they should take it. But if they find an intriguing deal that upgrades the offense beyond this year, they should consider that too, even if it requires prospects being traded. That would help them nominally compete in 2015 and more significantly compete in '16 and '17. A really cheap rental for just the rest of 2015 wouldn't do much damage either. There are a lot of ways to go!

QUOTE (VAfan @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:05 AM) Last time I wrote something like this, the Sox went on a tailspin. Hopefully, it won't happen again. But when you look at the standings and the loss column, the Sox only have one team with fewer losses (Baltimore at 49-49) between them and the Minnesota Twins for the second wild card spot. The Tigers are tied with us in the standings, and Toronto, who everyone thinks we should ship the Shark to, is tied with us at 50 losses. Tampa Bay has 51 losses, but two more wins. So why should the Sox sell at the trade deadline? Shouldn't we consider trying to add a bat instead? This latest streak has been fueled by a suddenly alive offense. But the starting pitching has also been excellent (outside of the games Danks pitches on the road). And the bullpen looks very good. Albers is a nice addition at this point, and Nate Jones still might make it back this year. You don't get many chances at the playoffs. Why not go for them when you have an opportunity? We've always felt like we could be a matchup nightmare for some teams with our rotation. Who wants to go up against Chris Sale, the Shark, Quintana, and even Rodon? We don't need to squander the future here. At the least, we could get a righty platoon partner for LaRoche. Beyond that, just probe for good deals, if they can be had. The only guy we're losing at the end of the year is Shark, and we'll get something back for him if we don't sign him. Seems like a small price to pay to have a chance at the postseason. Not going to argue the merits of going for it vs. not going for it, because I can see both sides. But the bolded is simply not true in baseball anymore. With the second Wildcard in place now, you pretty much have a shot at the playoffs just about every year if you are trying — and, if this team is any proof, even if you have an abysmal start to the season. With the theoretical chance always there in this era, I think teams will have to be more discerning about their go for it/don't go for it midseason decisions.

For those of you interested in CarGo, this from Rotoworld: Carlos Gonzalez - OF - Rockies CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reports that the Rockies are planning to trade outfielder Carlos Gonzalez. And the timing couldn't be better, as Gonzalez went deep twice on Monday against the Cubs and now has 10 home runs this month. The 29-year-old is batting .278/.332/.520 with 20 home runs and 51 RBI overall this season. His injury history and contract could cause some teams to shy away, but he has the potential to be an impact bat for a contender. He's making $16 million this season and is owed $37 million from 2016-2017. Source: CBS Sports Jul 28 - 9:44 AM His contract's not great, but it's not atrocious. If we take it as a given that the Sox will be looking for a OF/DH bat going forward (not just 2015 but the next couple of years as well), there aren't many options that will be cheaper. Alternatives for 2016 (as free agents) include Upton, Gordon and Heyward, who will each get waaay bigger contracts that probably outstrip their production. Puig/Dodgers bats might be available via trade, but they will cost much more talent/prospect-wise. I would be nervous about a CarGo freefall if the Sox acquired him, but I do see some logic in it.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) If Toronto really wants Shark, I'd want Hoffman/Sanchez + Anthony Alford. Otherwise I'm waiting until Thursday to see how the week goes. I'd prefer the WhiteSox sell but I do want them to holdout for best Shark package. I'd rather have Pompey than Alford — he's more advanced.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 03:06 PM) So he's still good away from Coors, but obviously not as good. FWIW, his home BA/OBP is .321/.394, and away it's .277/.349. And as always, add in the usually caveat that almost all hitters home/road splits became wacky when they play for the Rockies. Neither CarGo nor Tulo are as good as their home splits, but they can't simply be judged by taking them out of the equation and going only off road stats either.

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 02:56 PM) Tulo who makes like $20 million you can talk about. Who is hurt a lot. Has played 86 games. But you dismiss Cargo and his 2 yr $37 million. He's hurt a lot too but has played 88 games this season. CarGo fits a need and can move Avi as part of the deal maybe. I don't understand how moving Avi as part of any deal would somehow entice another team. As for CarGo, I was a proponent of acquiring him before, and the Sox still have a desperate need for an OF/DH, as there is nothing at all in the minor league pipeline. But at this point, he'd have to come at a steep discount (no one of significance prospect-wise going to Colorado).

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) This post has my exact thoughts. I feel like if they sweep the Red Sox, then they'll make a push and settle for a sandwich pick or resigning Samardzija. If they don't the price should be something like Pentecost and Hoffman. I would like to see Dalton Pompey's name in the mix as well.

If the Sox are truly back in the Wildcard race, it just proves how pointlessly long the season is, and how utterly meaningless any games before July are. Unless you play like the Phillies, you're never out of the race and no conclusions can be drawn for any pre-July stretch of baseball. I like the 2nd Wildcard, but it does make the 162-game season laughable.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 09:48 AM) Again, the other huge factor is what you would get back. No need trading Samardzija for anything less than pretty much guaranteed future White Sox starting position player(s) or useful pitchers, not Charlotte Knights, is what is best for the team. If not, hang on to him, grab the pick. This is the key. There have been plenty of times before when the Sox have missed good opportunities to "sell" because they felt their underperforming, so-so team could get back in the race at any time. Those were frustrating, because the team's chances of competing were low and they could have restocked/reloaded for a better chance the following year. While their chances of seriously competing this year are very low, the chances any return on a rental of Samardzija being significant are also low. Not as much at stake here, I guess. I would agree that, if a good match doesn't present itself, there's very little point in just trading him for some low level lottery tickets.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 09:16 AM) Is a B prospect for Samardzija really the best move for the "long term health" of the franchise? A win or two the next couple of days makes things more than interesting. Are the Sox coming out of hibernation? Probably not, but what if they are? Again, jumping teams is not that big of a deal because of the similar loss columns. The Sox just need to win games. They just need Minnesota to fade. Who knows, other teams fade as well. The 2005 White Sox faded quite a bit IIRC. If teams want to give the White Sox a really nice prospect or 2 go for it. If it is a middle of the road guy, trade him in August when teams out of it won't claim him, and the team that probably needs him does. If Forbes is to be believed, the White Sox don't need a salary dump. They claim the team has made a cumulative profit of $219 million since 2002. Keep in mind that this is a team that has played just shy of 100 games at this point. Judging any team that far into a season based only on a one-week stretch — good or bad — is short-sighted. So I don't think it's right to say, "If they take three of four from Boston, do X; if they take two of four, do Y." (Besides, didn't a lot of people say the same thing about the Royals series?) It's just one or two games out of 162. It's not unlikely at all, to me, that the Sox could start playing better and decrease their deficit in the WC race. But they have a crazy slim margin for error. It's not enough to go on a hot streak, that just gets them back in the race. They then have to not go on a cold streak the rest of the way to actually beat the other teams. With the uncertainty about their up-til-this-week historically bad offense, I don't think it's a good bet that they'd actually pass six teams. MLB.com gives it a 5.2% chance. That's not scientific, but it's not a number out of the blue either. ...All that said, there's not that much upside to selling anyway. Barring any Sale or Quintana blockbusters (which I personally don't think the Sox would do anyway), the only guy worth a damn at all is Samardzija, and the return for him probably won't be anything that really enhances the team's chances in 2016 anyway. If someone really wants to overpay for Samardzija, I'm still all for trading him. But otherwise, it's really six one way half a dozen the other.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 03:51 PM) I'm pretty surprised how much the tide has turned in regards to an openness by Soxtalk posters to moving Sale....seems like this was almost unfathomable to most last year at this time. It's all fantasy/message board fan talk anyway, as I don't think KW/RH would ever actually trade Sale, and the Dodgers would never give up that incredibly risky monster prospect package either.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) If that is what we got for Shark & Q, I'd throw up. If we are trading both, we should be getting at least 2 of Puig / Segaer / Urias. In fact, give my view on Puig, I am not making that deal without Puig + Seager (because I prefer Seager to Urias given our needs...that said, I think Urias could be even better then Seager). Agreed. Urias is good. Like, really good. But, thinking it through, if the Sox really wanted a good, cost-controlled pitcher... they'd just keep Quintana. The upside of trading him is filling the holes on offense. So if I can only have two of those guys, I'm taking Puig and Seager. That's probably a more palatable trade for the Dodgers as well. With Urias out of there, maybe Barnes, Guerrero, et. al. come into play as well.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) What about Sale & Shark to the Dodgers. We know the Dodgers are looking for 2 pitchers and they want at least one of them to be cost-controlled. We have talked Q & Shark, but what about Sale & Shark. Could you get Puig / Urias / Seager / Joc? I highly doubt it as the Dodgers would be pulling 2 guys from their actual lineup (and not sure how they would fill those offensive holes). If...if the Dodgers are at all willing to part with all four of those guys in one deal, I am listening.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I doubt it. I think if we dealt Q and Shark (they actually need 2 starters according to most reports) for Puig / Seager / Barnes, that would probably be the only package where you could get Puig & Seager without giving up Sale. And even then I don't know. QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 10:33 AM) I think LA would be tempted to make a deal for BOTH Shark and Q. From what I read, the Dodgers are looking for younger cost controlled pitchers and Q pretty much exemplifies that. Many believe Seager is untouchable, however if the Dodgers can get both Q and Shark- you just never know... I would consider that. But if you trade both Quintana and Samardzija, man, you are decimating this starting rotation. Bright side, I guess, would be that there is a crap ton of starting pitching FAs available this coming offseason.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 05:17 PM) I would trade Shark, Montas and Avisail for Puig. I don't think they want Avi but I'd do it. I don't really care, get me Puig. I don't see the Dodgers wanting Avi or Montas, that just feels like filler on the Sox end to make up some value. The Sale for Puig/Pederson, Urias and Seager deal (give or take a Barnes or Olivia here or there) is still the most intriguing (though unrealistic) one, IMO. What about Quintana? Think the Dodgers would do Quintana plus for Puig/Pederson and Seager in any way, shape or form?

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) I'm almost certain that is the reason. I'll third this. The Sox would surely have targeted different kinds of returns than an A-ball catcher. However, it is a little discouraging that the Sox may not have engaged the Astros seriously because they weren't sure they were sellers.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 21, 2015 -> 03:55 PM) It would have to be all four and even then throw in some low level guys or absorb a bad contract. Too much bust capacity in those four products to give up a generational talent like Sale. No ones untradeable but you need to quality and quantity in any deal for Sale. I'm pretty harsh on prospect packages, but even I would say that four-pack would be the definition of quality and quantity. It's the only thing (minus a Kris Bryant-plus package) that would get me on board with trading Sale. You'd be filling a heck of a lot of holes. However I agree there's no way the Dodgers make that deal.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2015 -> 11:33 AM) Not sure if anyone caught Dan Hayes on lawrence holmes last night, but he said he's not sure sox will get anything more than a b prospect for smarj. I hope he's wrong, but this is the way I see it as well. If a contender wants to give up good prospects (which hasn't happened much recently outside of Billy Beane's puzzling Russell trade last year), they'll go for the bigger ticket items like Hamels, Cueto or Price. The market price for Samardzija, with his two-month rental status and good-but-not-great 4+ ERA, will be a step down. Honestly, I think Sox fans are going to be disappointed with what comes back for Samardzija, but there's still hope for a bidding war in this seller's market. Or a Lester-Cespedes style outside the box trade. QUOTE (staxx @ Jul 21, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) Depends on what type of B/B+ prospect it is. Catcher? Make the deal. Anything else I'd be hesitant, and inclined to just get the draft pick. A second tier catching prospect? Pass. Keep in mind "B prospect" in this context doesn't mean John Sickels-style grade B, it means lower quality. Give me the comp pick if that's the best we can do, especially if it's a catcher.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jul 19, 2015 -> 02:41 PM) Puig, Seager, Urias, and Pederson for Sale. Not happening but I'd do it. I am against trading Sale, as most packages seem too weak to me. That one, however, is just about the only Sale trade I would do — enthusiastically.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 02:49 PM) Welcome to 2015 and the post PED era (also consistent with the vast majority of baseball history). Catchers that can hit are an extremely rare breed. The toll taken from catching games (as well as time spent on pitch calling / opposing stats / etc) juts makes it so difficult to be able to hit for much. Its why an upgrade at C is nice, but compared to what we have going on in the outfield and at 3B, it pales in comparison to overall importance. Such a great point. Can we get this on a billboard along the Kennedy?

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) Exactly why I don't think we trade for him. There's no spot One of Melky, Avi or LaRoche would be moved. CarGo's lost a step defensively, but he's still better than Melky or Avi.

For reference, Puig's first-half slash line: .261/.343/.429 with 4 HRs and 1 SB. OPS more than 100 points lower than his career line. Aberration or downward trend?

Ha, this thread brings me back to last winter when I was really hoping the Sox could acquire him. He hasn't really been all that great for the Rockies so far, so the bloom's worn off that idea (maybe the Sox dodged a potential bullet). I don't think I'd give up much of value for him, but if the Rockies were interested in a salary dump, I'd listen. I don't see how a swap for Danks helps the Rockies.