Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 10:31 AM) Keller, Glasnow, Bell, Hayes, Diaz...I can't figure out who the "SP currently in MLB" is, unless they're just naming Glasnow twice. Not a big fan of that deal. Meadows, Glasnow/Keller (I prefer Glasnow because the White Sox are great at fixing control issues), Bell, Hayes probably gets it done for me. Meadows, Glasnow/Keller, & Bell would be way better than the Sale return and then you throw in another prospect who is considered top 100 on some lists. No way in hell that is happening. And rumbunter said Diaz wasn't in the package, so perhaps that 4th prospect is Craig or Tucker. If Hahn passed on a deal with either of those guys plus Glasnow, Keller, Newman, & others then he's f***ijg crazy IMO. That being said, I don't buy this rumor for a second.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) Rum Bunter ‏@rumbunter 12h12 hours ago More Pirate prospects in Baseball America's new top 100: 6 - Austin Meadows 22 - Mitch Keller 23 - Tyler Glasnow 35 - Josh Bell 55 - Kevin Newman Rum Bunter ‏@rumbunter 1h1 hour ago More @rbrockets They offered 3 top 50 overall prospects, another one of their top 10 prospects, a current MLB SP, and another current MLB player I don't believe this for one second There's no way in hell the Sox turned down a package like that. And no way I buy them offering a 6 for 1 deal unless one of those MLB players had a bad contract like Bastardo.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 08:29 AM) Now Trump will be involved in MLB through his in-laws. More conflicts of interest...or intrusion of politics into sports. The New York Times revealed the potential buyer to be Joshua Kushner, a New York City venture capitalist whose older brother Jared is married to Ivanka Trump. Jared Kushner is senior advisor to President Donald Trump. But the Times reported that neither Jared Kushner nor his father, Charles Kushner, are involved in ongoing talks to buy the team. Instead, Joshua Kushner and Joseph Meyer, his brother-in-law, have been engaged in talks with the Marlins for months about buying the team. Kushner and Meyer have “devised a complicated arrangement that would include bringing in partners later” in order to buy the franchise, according to the Times. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/mlb/miam...l#storylink=cpy Caulfield, I think you're a great poster, but my god do you know how to derail a thread.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 09:52 PM) Explains the Kevan Smith move. Coincidentally, today's Fangraph article says Wieters is just ok. However just ok is a hell of an improvement over last year. He be could a solid flip candidate. Maybe he gets hot and hits a few extra HRs at the Cell and improves his value.

Would explain the Smith move, although not seeing this anywhere.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 09:30 PM) Is that the lowest (worst) we've seen on Kopech and Giolito? Yes, but highest for Lopez & Collins.

Of note, Martes & Tucker ranked #15 & #19 respectively.

Don't know much about him personally, but as a sports owner he seemed like a good dude. RIP.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 06:10 PM) I didn't realize outright waivers are irrevocable.so if another team claimed Smith, the Sox couldn't have pulled him back. Either something is cooking or they were pretty certain he would make it through, or they didn't really care if another team claimed him. QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 06:11 PM) Makes sense..they needed some roster flexibility. It was a good time to push someone through waivers. The problem with pushing him through right now is we simply don't have a lot of catching depth. Right now, we have two catchers on our 40 man roster. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like we typically have four on our 40 man roster, which means we're light even if we think we can count on Soto (which is risky IMO). If Smith was truly this expandable then why not wait and see what you have in Soto first? Again, this makes me think we have somewhat urgent plans for his roster spot.

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 05:29 PM) Kind of an odd move right before sprint training. I don't know if I buy this as trying to open a spot for Soto. Seems really foolish to guarantee Soto a position at his age and injury history before ST even begins, unless they did a handshake type of deal. I wouldn't mind Wieters at a 1 yr. deal as a sign and flip candidate, but I think the Sox really want Narvaez to prove what he's got. I agree with you on Soto. We now have two catchers on the 40 man roster, which makes sending down Smith (and risk losing him) to open up a spot for a frequently injured Soto pretty crazy. I would say this pretty much means another move is coming.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 04:58 PM) Maybe the FO's idea of a rebuild is not what we fans thought it was. You can keep telling yourself this, but the Sox are doing a legit rebuild.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 02:17 AM) I'll humor them and try to put together an offer not including Musgrove, Bregman, Martes, or Tucker... Paulino, Whitley, Reed, Fisher, Laureano, Stubbs.\ I would be ok with that, but would the Astros really want to give up 6 of their top 12 prospects instead of Tucker plus 2 or 3 others? I wouldn't take that deal if I'm the Sox. If you substituted Perez for Laureano or Stubbs then maybe, but there's still a ton of risk with that package as guys are either far away or have huge question marks. Even if they would offer such a package, which is unlikely IMO, we're probably better waiting until the deadline and hoping for something with more certainty.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 09:47 PM) This Phil Rogers piece from tonight says that the Astros have been unwilling to include to include Kyle Tucker in trade talks which is borderline insanity: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/215591558/wh...picid=151437456 It does explain why a deal hasn't been consummated if true. That definitely makes the most sense and I actually remember some Astros fans stating he was the untouchable earlier this offseason. Well he's off limits, then there's no way in hell I'm doing a trade with Houston right now. I've been one of the biggest proponents of trying to get a deal done before the season, but if a guy like Kyle Tucker is off the table then we may have no choice but to wait.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 08:02 PM) Why would he back out of the WBC if he is traded? Well that's kind of my point. If I were Luhnow and felt I was the only team actively involved in trade talks, I'd probably wait until after the WBC was completed to execute a trade. Might as well avoid any unnecessary risk if at all possible. Again, this is me just throwing out a dumb idea.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 07:57 PM) Why would he say that? He has a contract. Besides he doesn't come off as that kind of guy. Because he wants to represents his country in the World Baseball Classic. This event is very important to a lot of baseball players. I don't know the rules, but does he need permission from the Sox to pitch in the event?

Dumb thought, but could Houston or another team be waiting until after the WBC to complete a trade? Perhaps Quintana told the Sox he won't back out under any circumstance?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:45 AM) There are definitive ways for the Bears and White Sox to get to a point in which they are competing for titles. Both franchises have started down this path. There is no definitive way for the Bulls to reach championship level (while keeping Jimmy Butler) in the near future. You guys may think the idea that the Sox and Bears being good is crazy but those sports allow you to become better in a hurry. The nature of the NBA is not like that. The Bulls only option is tear it down to the studs and they haven't been willing to do it. 100% agree with this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) A guy like Q WON'T be available in next years free agent class because the guy has near zero financial obligation compared to the rest of the market. Quintana will also cost top prospects, while Chapman only cost money. I'm not sure how the two scenarios are even remotely comparable, especially for a team like the Yankees. Scooping up an elite reliever a year early (when one might not be available in 2018's free agent class) only for cash makes sense whether they are competing in 2017 or not. Trading away key parts of your future when you're not ready to compete doesn't. The Yankees are much better off keeping their cost-controlled talent and trying to add TOR starters via free agency over the next two years before looking at guys who cost prospect capital.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) Then why did they sign a closer to an $86 million contract (with an opt out after three years, when they would theoretically be competitive)? I don't get that. I think the Yankees would be fine with trading Frazier + Rutherford for Quintana, but it won't happen until June/July. Because a guy like Chapman may not be available in next year's free agent class.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) Yankees fans are f***ing morons. They're arguing with me that giving up Frazier and Rutherford for Q is too much. I wouldn't trade both of those guys for Quintana if I were them. I don't disagree he's worth them from a theoretical standpoint, but I don't see the point of giving up that much talent when the rest of the roster isn't ready to be serious contenders and they'll be sitting on boatloads on money in the very near future to fill some of their needs. It makes much more sense for them to wait another year or two before making a move like this.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:50 AM) I'm not suggesting compromise won't eventually happen, but if his ask was Musgrove + Martes + Tucker the Sox are not going to take Martes + Tucker + depth as a package But that was his starting ask. You can't actually tell me that Basabe + Diaz = Devers right? Hahn pretty clearly came down off his initial ask from the Red Sox, but that doesn't mean he compromised. Realistically he needed Moncada plus one of Kopech or Devers to do a deal. The other two pieces were far less important, which is evident by how quickly they were negotiated. Therefore, if Hahn asked for all three of Musgrove, Martes, & Tucker initially, realistically he's probably looking for Tucker and one of Martes or Musgrove. Yes, he'll a couple solid pieces to round out the deal, but I have no doubt in my mind he'd accept a Martes & Tucker headlined deal without Musgrove and not consider it comprising.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) Too light in my opinion Musgrove has mid rotation potential and a high floor due to his excellent control. He was a top 50 prospect going into last season (and still would be top 50 if eligible) Fisher/Laureano + Stubbs does not equal the value Musgrove can bring at all I'm bullish on what Musgrove can eventually become. I feel like he will become a true #3 starter on a contending team. The Astros aren't dealing Musgrove & Martes in the same deal, as they'll need one of them for depth. And they definitely won't be dealing Tucker on top of those two guys. IMO, that's a far superior package to the one Eaton returned. IMO, any return has to be headlined around Martes & Tucker and must contain two other solid pieces. That 3rd piece is important and would preferably be someone like Reed or Perez. If you have to step down to Fisher or Laureano, then I'd want a little bit better 4th piece (like Stubbs in the above example). Saying two top 50 prospects plus two more top 10 org prospects from a deep system is not enough seems crazy to me.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:32 AM) We have no idea if they asked for Musgrove, Martes, and Tucker though. That seemed like something floated to Gammons. And even if he did, the idea that accepting anything less is compromising is beyond ridculous. A starting ask is not going to be Hahn's make or break point. Hahn asked for Moncada, Kopech, & Devers for Sale initially and guess what, he ended up accepting less. Hahn has a realistic goal of what's acceptable in his mind and he probably won't drift far past that point, but there is no way in hell Hahn is holding firm at Musgrove, Martes, & Tucker unless he's the worst negotiator of all time.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 08:56 AM) Dumber than thinking a 'gun free zone' sign will protect you? if you prohibit people from protecting themselves legally, then you should be required to do so. Who's forcing you to shop in a gun free zone? If you're so afraid to go to Best Buy without your gun, then do your shopping on Amazon. Businesses should have the right to decide if customers are allowed to carry guns, just like you should have the right to not enter those businesses if you don't feel safe for some reason.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 08:27 PM) Juan Soto is a nice piece, perhaps along with severino? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get him for Robertson, but I just don't see it happening. At least not for the money I'd imagine we'd be willing to give up.