Y2Jimmy0

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 01:04 PM) I am trying to figure out why this guy is rated so highly with those kind of prospect grades. I mean we are talking about a guy who is going to generate an older Juan Pierre's numbers offensively as the best position player in a deal, and that excites people? What am I missing here? He's going to have high .OBP as well. This part is being ignored.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:33 PM) Two scenarios: Meadows + Glasnow/Keller + Newman or Glasnow + Bell + Newman + Diaz I think those ares both too much. I don't think there's any way that the Sox get Meadows. He definitely won't be paired with one of the best pitching prospects in baseball. People need to stop looking at the Pirates prospect list and take a look at top 100 lists. We are using back end top 100 guys as throw ins in these deals and it's completely unrealistic.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:26 PM) Give me Meadows, Newman, Keller, and Diaz. Meadows ~ Moncada Newman ~ Kopech Keller ~ Basabe Diaz ~ Diaz I think that's a fair outline. Mike, Keller is a top 50 guy in some publications and will be when new lists are updated. That's too much IMO. How is a ML ready catcher the same as a fireballing reliever in A ball?

QUOTE (Mattchoo @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:15 PM) My ideal scenario remains a trade with PITT that gets Austin Meadows. He is a perfect piece for both need and value from dealing Q. I don't know how to build a fair package around him though... and I would bet the GM doesn't want to give him up. But if I'm the GM of the Sox, I'm not budging from that stance. It has to be Meadows or no deal. So... trying to be real..... If the PITT GM actually is willing to do it, what is fair? I think Meadows, Glasnow, and Newman. 1 for 3 swap. Thoughts? That would be much better than the Sale return. There's no chance of this. Meadows and Glasnow are both top 10 prospects in baseball and Newman is a top 50 guy. If Meadows is involved, I'm guessing something like Meadows, Hayes, Diaz, flyer

QUOTE (beautox @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 11:40 AM) Newman does nothing for me but scream Gavin Cecchini / Ryan Theriot, that is not the hitting prospect i want headling the package for Q. Newman can stay at SS and will hit with a high .OBP. That's your prerogative though.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:15 AM) So happy to see Bama go down and flames. f*** them! Why?

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 08:15 AM) Glasnow/Newman/Keller is interesting, but we still need one more additional player along the lines of Hayes or Diaz to have the deal make sense for the White Sox. I don't feel like either the Astros or Pirates is close to getting a deal done from the rumors we have heard Glasnow, Newman, and Keller easily gives the Sox the #1 system in baseball. That's a lot. Good enough to move 4 years of Q? I don't know.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:17 PM) Rum Bunter also says the Pirates are less likely to trade Bell than Meadows. If that's the case, the 3 player package is most likely Glasnow/Newman/Keller which would be disappointing. That's a good deal from the Pirates end though. The problem we have with that deal is it's so pitching heavy. Glasnow is a top 10 prospect in baseball. Newman is somewhere in 35-50 range. Keller is rising and will most likely be top 50. That's 3 top 50 guys for Q. That's a lot of s***. It's just not the package packed with position players that we are expecting. If they added KeBryan Hayes or another high upside type and possibly their Competitive Balance pick then that's a fair deal. Not sure I'd be super excited because of the lack of position players but Glasnow/Newman/Keller trumps anything the Astros can do.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 04:53 PM) He may be, that is the new economics of the international FA market. With so many teams already having money committed to signings this summer, a bunch of teams restricted from making signings, that leaves teams like the Sox and Orioles with room from last season or the list of teams that are about to go on timeout. The Sox also have the option of perhaps trading a guy off the 40 man roster to a team that has extra bonus money left over like the Marlins or Orioles or a combination of teams. I just meant that if he signs during this period, it won't be with the White Sox. Only shot Sox have is if he's eligible after June 15th.

Feel free to grab a thread I created a month ago about the new International Signing rules as well if you want. I thought it was interesting but nobody really looked at it.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 03:43 PM) http://www.baseballamerica.com/internation...oeBLK4EF5pFd.99 Some idea of what Robert is about: http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id...s-island-beyond We already have this discussion in the FutureSox board. Can someone merge the threads?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 01:54 PM) http://www.baseballamerica.com/internation...l7qhZ49hsvhS.97 So we had 3.443 million, and know we spent 2 million So if the latter 3 were 100k or less, then we could have 1.1 million to spend. There's now way this kid takes that. They could sign him for whatever they want. Just won't be able to spend over $300,000 per guy next year. That's a problem though. It's also a waste because if you are going to go over, you should sign like $30 million worth of players or it isn't worth forfeiting the next year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 01:44 PM) They can't anymore anyway. The Rules have changed, and the Sox are in the small cap room bunch even. They can spend up to $8.3 million every year but they need to trade for $3.5 million in space to do so.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:53 PM) It only makes sense if we don't go over our cap. Otherwise we should have just gone all out and tried to sign everyone this period. We are barely under. He's not signing for less than $1 million.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:33 PM) Reading the story it seems like the link is speculative in nature, in that the Sox have some pool room, and have signed similar players in the past, but not that there is any real connection to him. Does anyone out there know how much international pool room we have left? I'm trying to get in touch with Badler. Signing this guy doesn't make any sense for White Sox. They have pool room but if they use it to go over and sign this kid, then they join the group of teams that can't spend this coming July 2nd. That's a problem because they are already linked to guys for the next signing period. If they do this prior to next signing period, it's a huge waste of resources as much as I'd like to add him. If he gets pushed to the 2017-2018 period starting on July 2nd, the most he can possibly sign for is $10 million and that would be someone's entire bonus pool. If he gets cleared to sign, I would guess it'll be a team like San Diego who blew past their limits for this year and can't sign a guy next year anyway. Athletics, Astros, Braves, Cardinals, Nationals, Padres, and Reds went over this past year and would be most likely teams to sign him.

Coats isn't even a 4th OF though because he can't play CF. He's like a 5th OF

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 01:50 PM) With Sanchez or Saladino at second? I suppose. Moncada will probably be there sometime in June or July

Garcia does have a 70 arm and is a good fielder apparently. Coats will clear waivers. Sox have decided at least initially though that they like Willy Garcia and Rymer Liriano better than Jason Coats.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 01:26 PM) I should have stated, "could be at 3B or DH at the MLB level." If they deal Frazier, there's actually a spot open for both to start every day (potentially). If Frazier is traded, I think Brett Lawrie will be the 3B

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) es.pn/2jjo1Eg 8m-12m: Peter gammons on Pirates/Q. Speculate astros coming back for Q with similar Archer deal. Discuss Pirates getting Q then trading Cole in year or two to recoup. 19m: Dave Dombrowski on Sale Some interesting notes: - Wash reports coming out, DD is nervous - Use thornberg trade to confirm deal is still possible (one player was discussed with chisox prior) - was not confirmed until next da but that night, Hahn brings up Basabe/Diaz and DD confirms they are open to that Kinda continues to be confusing. I was sure we used Wash rumors to make Bosox nervous into including devers but seems pretty clear boston was not budging on him + moncada 35 mm hahn - haven't listened to yet. I figure people are bored and could be interested. Hahn didn't say much. He mentioned they knew around deadline that they were selling but there were advantages to starting the process in the offseason. Mentioned that players who were just drafted would be available in offseason. Open-minded about moving anyone. They'd make a deal today if presented with right offer. He also reiterated that he has no problem waiting to make deals and it's not a "one year process".

If Buffalo really declines Tyrod Taylor's option, the Bears should be all over him. Only 27 and pretty good.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 07:26 AM) Discussing Abreu's trade market is kinda pointless...because there isn't 1. I don't see any team giving up anything of real value for any 1B/DH type of player in a trade with the FA market still the way it is. If he were on the market I think he would have gotten a deal by now though. No where near Encarnacion, but I could see him getting 3 or 4 years at $13-16M per year. Not really the case I don't think. If Trumbo and Bautista didn't have 1st round picks attached to them, I firmly believe they'd be signed right now.

Sounds like PJ Fleck is taking the Minnesota job. Interesting.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 12:31 PM) I think there are a couple directions you go. I think if your goal is to win games, you go with Romo and spend a ton on defensive free agents (probably targeting Eric Berry plus another FA corner) and then wait on QB (drafting someone in the 2nd or 3rd round...say a Josh Allen or the Texas QB or even a Watson if he falls). Part of the Romo situation probably is more tied to the fact that you don't see any QB's worth taking in the 1st round / being difference makers (and don't believe in Jimmy G / AJ McCarron). I think Romo is still a well above average QB (if you can protect him) and he can give you 2 years time to find someone else. If you think Kizer or one of the picks is the guy, then I think Hoyer makes a lot more sense as a bridge (probably doesn't change your free agent plans a ton, as I still think the Bears probably look at an Eric Berry / CB signing as those are major needs regardless) as you can still compete (in the sense that you don't want things to be a dumpster fire, especially if your defense comes around faster...although likelihood of it being totally dominant is less because you are no longer using the #3 pick on a guy you hope would be a high impact defender right away) before giving at least half a season to your young QB with a bigger eye on the following year (and most realistically, you are probably two years away if you got it right with your QB, because the reality is, it still takes time for the young QB, if he is the guy, to pan out). I presume we will end up taking a QB @ 3 overall and spend our FA money on DB's (potentially using our 2nd round pick on a DB as well or a tackle). To me, whether you go after Romo, hinges on how much you like the QB's that are available (long-term). If you think a guy in the pack is a franchise QB, you need to take them. If you don't, then I think Romo buys you time to do other things (better then say a Tyrod Taylor). Hoyer seems like the perfect groom guy. I agree with this. I'm in the minority on this board but I'd absolutely take DeShone Kizer at 3. His Texas game was better than any QB in this class. He has obvious flaws but he has a big time arm, ran pro style stuff, makes ridiculous throws, stands in the pocket, can move around, and is said to be incredibly intelligent and will impress in workouts and on the whiteboard. His games against Texas and Virginia this year were great. I watched his game against Clemson from 2015 and there were a ton of dropped balls. He would be my guy.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) Is this more on the coaching/training/strength group more than the GM? For a broken leg, a torn ACL, and severely sprained ankle? No. It's a dangerous sport.