Chicago White Sox

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.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 08:00 PM) Doubtful Robertson nets Fedde in a trade and no chance of Robles so that leaves Kieboom as the best starting point. Severino would give the Sox another catching option. Wouldn't mind snagging Cole as an option for the #5 spot. Cole couldn't be worse than watching Shields. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 08:09 PM) I can't see Washington giving up any more pitching above all else. Yeah, Fedde is their last high-profile pitching prospect and I can't really seem him being moved under any circumstance. I think Kieboom is about as good as you can do in a Robertson trade without eating the vast majority of his contract (would still need to eat some though). If he's not available, I'd do a trade like what Y2Jimmy proposed. Nothing wrong with getting a couple far off, but high ceiling assets for Robertson.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 06:57 PM) From BA on the '17 Astros top 10. Huge jump for Stubbs #10 and Perez moved up do #4. Anyone know when pipeline is going to update the top 100? 1. Francis Martes, rhp 2. Kyle Tucker, of 3. David Paulino, rhp 4. Franklin Perez, rhp 5. A.J. Reed, 1b 6. Forrest Whitley, rhp 7. Teoscar Hernandez, of 8. Yulieski Gurriel, 3b/1b 9. Derek Fisher, of 10. Garrett Stubbs, c baseballamerica.com MLBpipeline's top 100 is already updated.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 01:27 PM) Whatever happened to the 1-15 list? I don't see it anywhere and it was supposed to be posted the day after the 16-30 thread ? http://www.chicagonow.com/future-sox/2017/...2017-full-list/

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 01:04 PM) The fans would riot if the Sox took a lesser package to salary dump Shields Shields will be here for the next two years, which is fine since we are rebuilding. Best case scenario is the Shields miraculously redeems himself enough this season to become a viable deadline trade chip (very wishful thinking) I think there is almost no chance he's here for the next two seasons. At some point, they'll either trade him or release him. With Rodon at the major league level and Giolito, Lopez, & Fulmer on the cusp, the rotation is going to be squeezed pretty quickly. He might survive 2017, but 2018 will be another story.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:26 AM) I don't really have any interest in Severino. I doubt the Nationals would trade Juan Soto but he'd be a great get. I'd offer Robertson and $12 million for LHP Jesus Lazardo and SS Yasel Antuna. Lazardo was a 2nd rounder this year out of HS. He would have been a top 20 type if he didn't have TJS his senior year. Antuna is a tools infielder that signed for $3.9 million as an international guy this year. I would take that deal in a heartbeat and I think it's the exact approach we should take with our B-level assets. Go for guys who are far away but have considerable ceilings. And I 100% agree on Severino, don't really see the attraction there.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 07:05 AM) http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/washing...osenthal-020617 That might change soon; the Nats continue to discuss a trade with the White Sox for closer David Robertson, according to major-league sources. Robertson is owed $12 million this season and $13 million next season, creating an all-too-typical Nats obstacle. The team does not want to absorb Robertson’s entire obligation, and does not want to move additional prospects after parting with three young pitchers for Eaton, sources say. So let me get this straight, the Nationals don't want to absorb Robertson's entire contract nor do they want to move additional prospects. Don't really see why we'd make a deal if the best we can do is a partial salary dump.

Holy f*** what a catch, almost impossible to believe that just happened.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) I think this is a reasonable idea. http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/florida/bil...afety/396284288 I think that is the single dumbest idea I have ever read and further proof that Florida is the stupidest state in the U.S.