GREEDY

No one here disagrees with you. Everyone assumes there is a budget (as fair or unfair that it may be) and even if it isn't reached during this offseason that eventually we will be up against it during this "window". So, if we are burning just to burn let's not do it on the books in 2024 when the front office could have much more pressing needs than "which expensive veteran reliever to overpay".

Giving a closer 4 years is a move a team makes that has come up short in the playoffs a few years in a row. While I am VERY ready to spend some money recklessly I don't think this would be a wise allocation. If we are going to burn money on the bullpen lets do it on a 1 or 2 year basis.

While I agree completely, the Sox gave Leury 3.5 million seemingly to be this guy.

Bernstein not exactly going out on a limb claiming the Sox won't get Hendriks. Even if he has zero actual inside info, he is smart enough to know this isn't a bad bet. Pitchers, and especially relievers essentially fit on any team. Every club could use him and for the most part every team can afford him. If I were an oddsmaker I'd put the Sox at no better than 10/1 to end up with him.

Wonder if this deal getting close prompted the Sox to act with some urgency yesterday? Not saying it should have, and I think most people that are crazy enough to be active here on soxtalk knew keeping McCann wasn't in the cards, but if you read facebook comments, the average fan definitely was hoping to keep him.

I mean, historically speaking, 1 WAR players through 1200 Plate Appearances are generally expendable ?

I feel like Joc or any one of the "bad defender" options offered like 5X more upside... and if they weren't working out, a guy like Eaton could easily be had midseason.

I'll eat my shoe if Eaton hits 2 while YoYo & Yaz hit 5 & 7.

The timing makes me wonder if this was Hahn trying to look like a genius for renting Eaton to the Nats in exchange for Giolito & Lynn?

We need someone with the upside to dominate a playoff game. The innings eater will be a thing of the past assuming there are no further rule changes aimed at limiting the way relievers are used. Too much data showing you aren't trying to win if you let pitchers face a lineup a 3rd time. And the next step from there will be not letting pitchers face hitters they matchup poorly with a second time.

Weird ideas? Marcus Stroman > Jace Fry, Micker Adolfo (based solely on the idea that the Mets may not have expected him to take the QO and there could be some hard feelings about sitting out last season) Kevin Gausman > Jonathon Stiever (While SF must have expected Gausman to take the QO, if they can't extend him I'd think he'd be a red hot trade target) Kole Calhoun > Blake Rutherford (AZ surely would like the shed his 8 million) Danny Jansen > Zach Collins (Local kid comes home if Jays get one of the big name catchers) Corbin Burnes, Lorenzo Cain > ? (Brewers are so intriguing, likely not enough talent to win, possibly over budget already, giant holes in their lineup, but still have several positive assets, if they need to shed payroll they could really be interesting this offseason. While the Sox trading for either Burnes or Woodruff likely isn't weird, them taking Cain's money and rolling the dice with him in RF likely qualifies for this thread)

Wouldn't a depressed RF market impact our front office's opinion on where to spend? Or where to save? Many of the available corner outfielders *could* play RF but they'd be best suited spending some or most of their time at DH. No universal DH would seemingly negatively impact their market, which could easily affect Springer's market. I mean just look at it from the Sox' perspective: If (Ozuna/Bradley/Joc etc) gets a 1 year deal, maybe you go with him and spend the extra Springer money elsewhere... but if there is a Universal DH maybe (insert player here) now costs double and then you decide there is no value there so you might as well just pay up for the perfect fit in Springer.

Do we think front offices know whether or not we will have universal DH next year? Because if it is still "up in the air" I'm not sure we will see much movement on Springer before there is clarity there. I would think the fallout from this ruling would have some impact on George's market.

1. Reliever with the big club 2. April: Short Reliever @ Charlotte May thru Mid June: Short reliever w/ the Big Club Mid June thru Mid Aug: Slowly Stretched out @ Charlotte Mid Aug - Oct: Long Situational Reliever w/ the Big Club. Brought in for an opportune matchup, faces the entire lineup once thru. Crochet then remains in to face that good matchup(s) again and exits (10-12 batters). FWIW barring a rule change I think the fashion I would use Garret down the stretch is how dominant lefties will be used from here on out, going every 3rd or 4th day.

Agreed. Just pointing out how deep 2B is in free agency and how our fans think when speculating about trades. I believe Vaughn is more likely to be dealt specifically because 1B is so thin.

Fake insiders love including Madrigal in their fake trade rumors right now because they just fill the hypothetical hole with Wong or Hernandez. The minute those two are off the market then Madrigal will be magically untouchable again.

I think Ryan Johansen does alot of biomechanics stuff. He is currently listed as their asst hitting coordinator.

Matt Lisle is the baseball guy that softball moms follow on Facebook. When the Sox hired him I assumed someone let Kenny google "Baseball Hitting New Skool". He didn't say shit while he was here and bad mouthed the org on the way out. Screw him. But with that being said can you imagine being the intern that has to turn on Coop's 2nd Gen Ipad every morning?

Correa & Reddick for Castillo per PFT Commenter

This is precisely what I'm talking about. I couldn't believe I was being called more names and look at that, it is by another friend of raBBit. You guys win. I'm done.

I'm telling you they rolled back into this thread and somehow changed the tide from "they got something wrong... again" to "we are insiders, sometimes we can't share stuff, sometimes we can, you are trolls if you question us".

Good. Lowers the Phillies chances of signing Machado dramatically.

I understand.

Sure, I think "our" guys get more than some leeway. If Dan Clark came here and said Joc was all but done and his source said something big was going down at Soxfest, we'd make his mother delete her twitter account. A few people here tried to dissect what info Team WSD had and why they couldn't share it after Shack said "If we knew what they know" and they came rolling into town and changed the narrative into we should be happy to get the news we get and we are trolls if we even question their info or their eyeballs. A few members brought up the news they had right, not the news they've had wrong, everybody piled on and here we are.

Fans (not just white sox fans) are tired of people on the internet posing as insiders and taking stabs at breaking sports news. There are tons of people doing this for attention and hoping to start or advance a career. It is mildly infuriating to the general sports internet public. So, if you are an actual insider, and you want to pose as one on the internet, you have to expect people to get cranky when you have attempted to break news and it doesn't come to fruition. Obviously, nothing is guaranteed and an honest good person could get things wrong from time to time, but you have to know that negative reactions will come with the territory. Regular messageboard fans and general little people: DO NOT let these insiders and their friends turn THEM MISSING ON NEWS into "non insider dudes on a message board are upset that we aren't sharing the secret news we have". That is not what happened here. A bunch of guys here eluded to varying degrees of something big going down soon and it didn't come true, and now they have managed to swing the tide from them being wrong into WE are the idiots for maybe even kinda slightly accusing them of being wrong. Somehow it is acceptable to tear Nightengale and Bruuuuce to shreds, calling them every name in the book, but we can't even question "our" guys? I apologize for any intentional or unintentional joking i've done with people's internet handles. Peace.