CyAcosta41

I'm not concerned at all that nothing has happened yet on our big-chips (Sale, Q) or on our mid-sized chips (Robertson, Melky, Frazier). With Sale and Q, the combination of ability and value (salary and control) and in an area of overall market weakness (quality SP) makes them highly valuable. No way is our Front Office not aware of this. All of the talk about the Sox "asking for the moon" and so forth is (a) justified (at this time in the trading spectrum), and (b) posturing from rival GMs who are trying to pressure a team in clear need to unload their prime assets at a more buyer friendly price. The Sox can only counter by sticking to their guns (at least now), playing teams and rivalries against each other, and ramping up the sense of impending doom to the competing claimants by using the expiring clock to their advantage. IF a Sale or Q deal was to be made during this year's trade deadline, I always expected it to be made at the 11th hour. In other words, business as usual, folks. Personally, I think our offensive suckitude is so strong (both our existing crew and our demonstrated inability to draft and/or develop offensive talent) that we truly need to restock. I'd love to see one of Sale or Q go for an offense oriented haul (a top arm or two coming back as well) while the other goes to the Dodgers for a deal headlined by Urias, but also bringing back DeLeon, Pederson, and a few more sticks. I'd also rather see Sale out of the A.L. altogether -- so Sale to LA for me. Between possible Bosox and Texas hauls -- Bosox all the way. Especially if Texas won't trade Mazara (at least during the season), most of the other headliners are riddled with questions. Not so with the Red Sox. The prospect business is risky enough. We need greater certainty with our uncertainty. I also think there are two major sleepers out there -- the Yankees and the Pirates. Real good chance the Yanks have assembled prospects for Chapman and Miller in order to be players for Sale or Q. With Torres, Frazier, and Sheffield now under their control, they can easily send back the proverbial haul -- give me those three, plus Sanchez and another arm and they are easily in the mix. In fact, expand that deal and let them have homecoming for lots of wayward Yankmes -- how about Q, Robertson, and Melky in a mega-deal? LOVE fueling the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry to our possible advantage. My other sleeper is the Pirates. Sure, looks like they've cashed it in for 2016. That said, they have a strong nucleus for the foreseeable future, a solid prospect base, and an absolute NEED for cost-controlled pitching super talent. No way can they take the leap to a next level -- or even sustain this level -- without that. I'd be very surprised if they're not heavily in the mix right now, particularly because they could trade rostered MLB talent today while those still competing likely feel they can't.

Hello, fellow Sox faithful. Wild that after that blazing hot 23-10 start, we'd be dealing with an all-but-dead team late July, and, worse yet, a new round of grave concerns about this team's future. At some point, even this loyal to a fault ownership group must acknowledge that the franchise is broken. Because they're intelligent and successful (at least in their other pursuits), I'm clinging to the hope that there will come a time when reality trumps misplaced loyalty -- if for no other reason than protecting the value of the franchise. Me? I'd jettison Ventura, Cooper, and KW today, and give the keys to the car to RH (without his egotistical backseat driver). Now, on to the topic of "specific trade ideas." I'm not going to list the various Top-100 guys we should target who are sprinkled throughout prospect lists, but concentrated in the systems of a few teams. Others have done that at length. Instead, my contribution today is simply my own view (shared by others -- very little is original here) of big-picture philosophy. More than a few of us have criticized Sox management of either lacking a coherent overall philosophy and/or failing to properly execute on a philosophy (if they actually have one). For your consideration: First time in ages the Sox are in the driver's seat for all sorts of possible deals. If we're going to sell, then MAXIMIZE this rare opportunity. In an era of sky high prices for a limited pool of Top-20 pitchers, we have a Top-5 guy and a Top 12-15 guy (I'm a huge Q fan), BOTH with way below market price tags and control. Are you kidding? That's gold. Please Rick, treat it as gold. Create an auction environment. Make sure all of baseball understands we're expecting to be blown away because we don't have to trade either of these guys (and not to you ... Red Sox or Dodgers or Rangers or Astros). And Rick, please -- for once, we're not going to be the ones throwing in additional sweeteners to make the deal. THEY pay or we don't play. Recognize WHO would pay the steepest price for a Sale or a Q and make them pay! For instance, we all talk about how the wealthy teams can take on Sale or Q without blinking. That's true, but it essentially trades just the star player, and not the star player PLUS his insanely below market contract. A team like the Pirates want and frankly NEED a Sale (+ contract) or Q (+ contract) to survive. Accordingly, there is every reason to suspect that in the end they'll pay the most (and they do have a system which will allow for that). Notice I haven't mentioned the Schlubs. Count me in among those who would only deal with the Cubs if they were literally the last team in all of baseball. And they're not. There are at least 5-6 teams who could provide the same or better return than the Cubs. Do you want Sale or Q pitching for THEM and helping them to achieve something that would sicken many of us? I sure don't, nor do we need to do so since there are so many other alternatives. We also have a solid and fairly priced closer at a market price. Great value in Robertson to the rich kids on the block. You know the Red Sox would pay to have him as a temporary closer and then a top-tier 8th inning guy (and wouldn't be phased by the price tag). Others might too. Want him? Then pay good value -- not fair value, GOOD value! Above that threshold, best offer takes home the prize. Frazier? Big value there too for a team that needs a bopper in this power-starved era. 1-2/5 seasons of power and decent defense has value. Melky? Professional hitter having a really good year. With control for another year at a reasonable contract. Someone will want him and should pay. I think the philosophy is to construct separate deals for the big-5 (with just a remote possibility of packaging Robertson in a blockbuster of blockbusters starter plus Robertson deal). Trade all 5 and the Sox should net an overall haul that might include a half-dozen Top-50 prospects, another half-dozen 51-100 guys, and likely a young stud or two just removed from that status (Betts, JBJ, Mazara -- no way the Bosox trade Bogaerts). Smoke clears and the Sox have a couple of young stud regulars we could be excited about (position players please, since we're curiously horrible in developing our own), plus 10-12 new super prospects who would likely ALL be in our top-15. Key is to be professional and closed mouth about what we're doing. Plug the leaks. Negotiate all these deals separately and simultaneously. Announce a flurry of closed deals at the same time before the rest of the teams see what you've done en masse! This CAN be done and it should be done (even if we've never managed to execute on this before). Use a sweetener -- I'm talking about guys like Duke and Jennings (for heaven's sake, no throw-ins like Fulmer or Adams, but feel free to throw-in a Coats or a Sanchez) -- ONLY to close a super-deal. For once, we should resist having to sweeten. Let the bidders do it! Intentionally flogging this horse one last time ... for ONCE we're holding some valuable cards -- an Ace (!) in Sale, a King in Quintana, and various other cards of value. It's go-time, Rick. Don't blow it. Act like your job is on the line. It is (and should be)!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 23, 2016 -> 08:04 AM) In the new BP, one of their writers wrote a break up letter to WAR. It was pretty interesting. His jist was WAR is still good, there is just some things WAR cannot measure like leadership, that he thinks is important. It was a pretty clever letter. There's a reason Rollins can be had for a minor league contract. We all know it. But, what does it hurt to see what he's got? The cost is right. At the very least, it keeps Saladino on his toes this spring. Maybe Rollins makes the team and does well. Maybe he makes the team and he sucks. Maybe he doesn't make the team. We will see, but there is zero harm, and perhaps being around him in the spring does the younger guys some good. Absolutely, especially the part I bolded. As I see it, signing Rollins was sort of a three-pronged strategy: 1 -- See what this former top SS has left in the tank (time will tell, but there are reasons to think he has something left) 2 -- Some would argue, "why take time away from the young Saladino?" And I think that by signing Rollins they actually are paying MORE attention to Saladino -- in the actual super-utility guy role they envision for him. 3 -- Assuming his remaining on field talent allows him to stick, bringing in another strong character guy to pair with Avila helps some of the youngsters like Lawrie, Avila, and (later) Anderson. How much does leadership and mentoring help? Hmm. Same answer as the riddle "what do you get when you mate an elephant and a rhinoceros?" Elefino! But anyone who knows baseball -- or PEOPLE -- knows it has to help some. And it can never hurt. Like the signing and really hope it pays dividends. Baseball can be a cruel game, but I think we're ripe for a dollop of good luck.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 11:35 PM) As long as Rollins doesn't look like Bonifacio last ST, he has a great shot to be starting opening day. I have my doubts the Sox ever wanted Saladino to be a full time starter. I have my doubts the Sox ever wanted Saladino to be a full-time starter too. But I think it's for a more positive reason. With his athleticism, speed, and defensive abilities, Saladino has a chance of being an outstanding super-utility guy (SS, 3B, 2B, OF ... even train him to be an emergency C as well to maximize roster flexibility). He'll never be Zobrist with the bat, but he'll be a far better defensive player and he very well might max out as decent with the bat (plus with occasional pop). I really like him for that role and I have a strong sense that Rick and the gang see that in him too. As for Rollins, I think adding him on a minor league deal (given the above about Saladino) was a great move. If he's got a reasonable amount left in the tank (and there is ample reason to suspect he does), then he'll be a very good bridge to Anderson. Plus, leadership IS an actual thing. Especially in baseball. I love advanced metrics as well as the next guy (well, most of the next guys), but there is no metric available to account for how certain players can help boost the quantitative metrics of other players. You don't think that Mark Buehrle and Matt Thornton added value to Chris Sale? Sale will tell you otherwise. Veterans and strong character guys like Jimmy Rollins and Alex Avila will absolutely help lay a stronger foundation for and bring out the best in talented (but seemingly rudderless) guys like Lawrie and Soxtalk's favorite whipping boy -- Avi Garcia. I love the idea of baseball QUALITY rubbing off on guys like Lawrie and Garcia (and later Tim Anderson) over the course of the very long baseball season.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:53 PM) Desmond is a better player than Fowler though. If I'm giving up the draft pick, I'd rather have the better player. Not a bad way to think of it, except: *Better players on their own don't win pennants, better overall teams do. *Sometimes a particular skill-set is what you need, not necessarily the better overall player. The easy example is a team thought to be strong in pitching, but still with more than one weak hole offensively. The better of two players available to you might be the pitcher, but as the last transaction of a given off-season the more needed player might be the offensive player. From that easy example, you get to tougher calls. I happen to agree that a strong OBP, better OF defense, and additional left-handedness to platoon with Avi are the greater needs (even if Desmond might be the better overall player than Fowler -- and I think Desmond has been incredibly undervalued the past few years and he just might be a great buy-low candidate (assuming he'll accept buy-low money)). And related to this last point is incremental gain. Isn't that what we really want to do in order to improve the team? From a WAR metric, or from just common sense, it sure seems the incremental advantage of Desmond as a replacement to Saladino isn't as great as adding a Fowler or Jackson as a way to bolster overall production in the OF (including defense) and the DH rotation. If you're a Saladino believer (and I'm leaning that way), then there's a decent shot he gives you within 1-WAR of Desmond and likely provides a bit better defense in the process (Desmond is criticized far too much about his defense in my opinion -- he's a solid + SS). That said, while I'd personally prefer Fowler (and maybe Jackson too), I have no problem with taking on all of Desmond's upside and turning the incredibly athletic Saladino into a super-sub who has an outside shot at becoming Zobrist-lite.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 05:47 PM) At the same time, the offense has two guys who can get on base at a plus rate. Fowler would be the third. It's just lawyer speak with Hahn. He's not insinuating anything most of the time. "In all probablity, we have to consider all options while giving consideration to the resources at hand and all the markets to play in. It's conceivable to make that leap, but it would require yada yada yada." In essence, nothing is even said. Or, said lawyer speak (without the yada, yada, yada) actually IS the appropriate response, albeit not the response the fanbase wants to hear. Situations are fluid; negotiations require strategizing; resources are not unlimited and need to be applied intelligently. Everyone has become used to ESPN poker shows where we can see everyone's cards. There is rarely anything to be gained by a FO in showing their cards to anyone (especially with how information goes viral). In fact, the opposite is true -- there is often a lot to be gained by obfuscation and stealth. Not defending my fellow attorney, Brian, but I'd rather Rick does a good job at his actual job instead of tipping his hand to fans and writers. Different matter altogether on whether he's doing a good job at his actual job. So far, I give him an A- for effort, but an Incomplete for performance.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 08:09 AM) If he can just be Kevin Kiermaier, I'd put that as a major win for the Sox farm system Amen. I'd take that.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:40 PM) I'm always somewhat surprised when people compare pitchers such as defining an ace or the other fangraphs article from last season looking for young starting trios as good as the Mets , how pitching in different leagues isn't brought up more. Put Sale , Q and Rodon in the NL and move DeGron Syndergaard and Harvey to the AL and everything is very different. I'm with you on that 100%. I've had just this discussion with old baseball teammates (I'm talking VERY old) who follow the game with the same degree of passion that I do. Just as you need a context to compare players from different eras, you've got to consider context when the AL and NL use different rules (9 hitters versus 8) and the dramatically different style of play that flows, in part, from that. Take everybody's favorite Kershaw vs. Sale argument. They're both great pitchers. Clearly. And they're both "aces," no matter how you define that term. But who is better? Generally, whether using the advanced metrics or the simple basics like ERA and WHIP, Kershaw comes out on top. But answer me this, Grasshopper ... if the Dodgers and the Sox traded one for the other, Kershaw now in the AL and pitching at the Cell, Sale in the NL and pitching at Pitcher's Heaven (oh, I'm sorry, Chavez Ravine or Dodgers Stadium, or whatever it's called these days), wouldn't you assume that Kershaw's numbers would inflate while Sales numbers would deflate? And, if so, by how much? By enough that the consensus "better overall pitcher" betwixt the two might change? If the Sox had decided to rebuild in earnest and looked to cash-in by finding the proverbial "haul" for Quintana (and, for a time, it sure seemed there was a strong argument that it might be wise to do just that), I'd have to imagine that the likely haul would have come from an NL team -- where lefties with good stuff and off-the-chart "pitchability" (that's how I'd describe Q) have long succeeded in a very big way. You don't think his already excellent metrics would get even better moving to the NL? And that some NL GM wouldn't realize just that and unload the truck for Quintana (ace or no ace)? As for that ace label. It's a word, man. Means different things to different people. To me, it's always meant someone who would be a #1 on a quality staff, but not every #1 is an ace ... an ace is the best of the best ... in that top tier of #1s. I love Q. I think he's fabulous to have on a staff. I think it's great that advanced pitching metrics show his value. But a lot of his value is tied up in his almost scary, robot-like consistency. He almost never has a bad game. It's also true that he's not as likely as a Kershaw, Sale, or other no doubt about it Aces to throw a one-hit shut out on any given game, or pitch out of his mind all year and throw out a 23 win season with a sub 2.00 ERA and a sub 1 WHIP. To me, he's everything you'd want in a GREAT #2. And why this staff is so intriguing is that young Carlos Rodon might grow into ace, #1, or monster #2 himself. Find #4s and #5s that rank midway in the bell-curve compared to other #4s and #5s and you have one damned good group of starters. Just my opinion. Because "Ace" is just a label and a word.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 09:11 PM) This, from the same poster, who, in another thread, implied that General Managers are among the smartest people on earth. Oldsox ... If you're referring to me, what you should have inferred from my comments about White Sox GM Rick Hahn and others who emerge from the wannabes of the world to reach the highest level of their chosen profession, wasn't that they're among the smartest people on Earth; instead, I stated directly (no need for inference) that Hahn and other GMs are not the blubbering imbeciles and incompetents that so many hyperbolic amateur-GMs would make them out to be. What I said is give the professionals some credit for being professionals. And working hard to do the specialist's job that they're paid handsomely to do. Just like most Cutler critical Bears fans aren't likely to hit the open receiver better than Jay, even though they think they can. Or most Holberg critical Bulls fans aren't likely to meld this divided flawed roster into a well-oiled machine better than Fred, even though they think they can. Similarly, it's not likely some armchair GM without years of experience and networking contacts out the wazoo will make baseball GM decisions at a better rate of success than the GM of [insert the GM of your favorite team here], even though they think they can. That said, are GMs infallible? Are they always right? Of course not. I never said nor implied any such thing. Moreover, predicting the career potential of baseball players is every bit as much art as science. It may be one of the hardest tasks in all of sports. Harder than hitting a baseball for a living. A superstar hitter fails 7 out of 10 times. Hit with 7 out of 10 draft picks and you're a God. Hit with 7 out of 10 first round draft picks and you're the best GM ever. And it's never any one GM's solo domain -- it involves scouts at all levels as well as other executives in the organization (often including ownership) where money questions are involved. In any given draft, once you get past the dozen or so super-studs, and the more or less consensus first-rounders, the hit rate to make the bigs among the rest is awful. In evaluating prospects, we're talking about so much more than the measurable -- we're talking about projecting continued improvement, mental and physical toughness, and sure, even Hawk's TWTW. If it were pure science, somehow I don't think Mike Trout would have made it to Pick 24, or Paul Goldschmidt to Pick 246, or Mark Buehrle to Pick 1139.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 07:30 PM) Right now, the best option might be trading for Desmond Jennings and adding Ian Desmond on a one year deal with a base of $10 million but a load of incentives where he could earn $17.5-20.0 million. The competitive athlete in him might respond well to that motivation, especially after turning down the 7 year, $107 million option. Or maybe it's a one year deal with a second year option that kicks in if he reaches his incentives, 20 homers and 30 steals, 750+ OPS, gets elected to the All-Star team, whatever, etc. With the caveat on Desmond Jennings being that you're not giving up someone you're unwilling to part with from the minors, and the Rays really aren't in a position to extract that with Jennings getting more expensive and the two injury-marred years. You lose the comp pick and get it back a year later on Ian Desmond. We should be willing to make our club a legit contender...the value to competing for the playoffs over the next two years should be a priority over 2020-22. Of course, this also depends on what Boras' demands are for Austin Jackson. Short. To the point. I don't disagree with a thing. Competing for the playoffs the next two years should absolutely be a priority over (I'll go farther) 2018-24. Otherwise, what we were doing picking up the exact guys we picked up to date (with a good chance we'll lose them in two years). And you mentioned a great point people keep forgetting. Sure, sign Desmond and you'll lose a sandwich pick this year. However, structured in any number of intelligent ways, losing Desmond should net us a new sandwich pick next year or the year after. We don't NEED that pick next year; we DO need to maximize our playoff chances in 2016-17 for so many valid reasons!

Great article. I've followed Engel's career fairly closely and dug up as many scouting reports as I could find, but you dug up many things that were new to me. Thanks to you and Future Sox for being such valuable resources. It's always nice to learn as much as possible about all the players in the system, including the key players. And Adam Engel IS a key player. For one thing, he's an all-world athlete and if you squint and dream a little, you can see Mike Trout Lite in Engel -- less power, a little more speed (or at least a little more interest/reason in using that speed), and the ability to change the game in many different ways. But for another reason, he's just a key player for the Sox as an organization. They've changed up their drafting philosophy a bit, but Engel may be the first of our positional "tool chest" prospects -- incredible athletic tools, but unrefined baseball abilities -- to have even a glimmer of real hope that he might develop into something close to his ceiling. It seemed that sooner or later SOMEONE had to break out. It didn't have to happen -- as applied to any individual player, low odds are low odds -- but over a long period of time, it sure seemed that SOMEONE, ANYONE, had to break out. It's too early to tell on Engel for reasons detailed in the article. He hasn't done it nearly long enough. Pitchers will now have a chance to adapt to the new and improved Adam Engel. And, sure, Kris Bryant and Nolan Arenado were AFL MVPs as well. However, I spent great deal of time in Arizona in 2008 and watched perhaps 20 fall league games. Tommy Hanson was the MVP and looked like Walter Johnson reincarnated. And the immortal Tyler Flowers was as dominant of an offensive performer as could be imagined -- hitting a HR every other game (or so it seemed), and rope after rope in each game. KW fell head over heels in love with this GREAT catching prospect (really? Kenny? doing that?), with the hope that maybe one day his defense might catch-up to his sure to be legendary offensive prowess. We all know how that turned out. And in 2007, the year before, the AFL MVP was the mighty Sam Fuld. Still, I have high hopes for Engel. With his tools, he could be a monster. Trout might be (!) hyperbolic, but, I'll take a young Torii Hunter. And wouldn't that be an unexpected bonus!

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 07:56 PM) Ya, much rather sign Fowler and give up the pick than trade good prospects for Puig. ^that sentence was purposely NOT written in green^ Thank you, for your support. As they say in the legal biz, "I concur." (Actually, I've never said that while in the legal biz, or anywhere else, until just this moment.) Puig would invariably cost at one of Anderson, Fulmer, Adams, plus X. The 28th pick in this year's draft is unlikely to be the equal of any of those players, plus, all three of them are closer to the proverbial show than Mr. 2016-28. And yes -- I also understand that sacrificing that pick ALSO has overall pool implications. And then, for this White Sox team at this time, I'd rather have Fowler than Puig (particularly because the "Puig experience" brings more in a somewhat negative sense than just Puig the player). Locking down a grinding OBP machine like Fowler is just what this team needs -- certainly for the next two years. Fowler. -or- Jackson plus Desmond. I'd prefer either route to Puig. One edit -- on reflection, Puig at his best certainly brings greater talent and even better OBP. However, for the reasons related to the prospects, any incremental advantage to Puig just seems too risky -- he could easily be a distraction and one more addition makes us a solid contender, but not any kind of prohibitive favorite. As a contender, I just can't see the risk of Puig, especially given the far greater cost.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) Agreed. Going into the off season the Sox had positional holes at RF, DH, 2B, 3B, SS and C. That's two thirds of the lineup. Half of those holes have been filled so some progress has been made. I'd like to see if the Sox make any more additions before I light my torch and prepare to storm Castle US Cellular to slay Count Reinsdorf. Agreed. We've strengthened many of our weaknesses from last year. Sometimes the effect can be geometric rather than straight arithmetic. Some people call this chemistry. Agreed also ... while I think they are tone deaf for not getting this done immediately before or during SoxFest (and I'll hold out hope that this is still possible), I'd bet any of Greg's remaining houses that there is an OF'er still to come (my preferences in order are Fowler over Jackson, but at least a Raburn type to make sure LaRoche keeps his seat on the bench against ALL LH'ers forever). But dude, DISAGREE ... the Villagers didn't storm the Castle against Count anyone. Count Dracula would have made short work of that. They stormed Baron Frankenstein's castle, and not so much looking for Baron Frankenstein, but Frankenstein's monster.

Thanks to the mods/admins who shortened my title to make it fit. One minor quibble is the change of word from surprise to shock. It makes a better headline, but does change the meaning. I said I would be personally SURPRISED if the Sox didn't have a move up their sleeve prior to SoxFest for two reasons: (1) they have holes and ample ways to fill those holes exist in the market; and (2) they are generally hip to PR and I can't believe they don't recognize all the good will they lost because of the futile Big Three chase (even if the chances of getting any of the Big Three was likely slim and none). The mood at SoxFest might be ugly (at times) and certainly will be tepid at best -- and I'd like to think they'd expedite a move that's already out there to help out in that way too (not force a move, expedite an already likely move -- big difference). But it wouldn't SHOCK me if nothing happens before SoxFest (now tomorrow). For one thing, sometimes you try, but swing and miss. So SHOCK is a bit strong. All that said, for me personally, I'd be surprised if they don't make a move because there are strong reasons to make one -- in general and right now. However, truth be told, I'm not at all expecting them to. Sadly, like many fans unfortunately, I'm getting used to an ownership and management group that seems to lack Hawk's proverbial TWTW.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 09:34 PM) As you also stated, they're not dumb. So forcing a move right now, just to fit it into the PR storyline of Sox Fest...that's almost always going to work out short-term smart but long-term stupid. In no way I was I suggesting "forcing" a move right now to garner PR points at SoxFest. Of course not. That said, there are so many worthwhile additions in this wide-open marketplace. Presumably, they've been mapping out plans B, C, and D as one by one their chances at the Big Three got away from them. It's difficult for me to believe that they'd have to engage in some rapid-paced negotiation (whether FA or trade) to get something done today or tomorrow. Instead, it's much more likely that it's pulling the trigger on something already proposed, or, applying some pressure on a FA or team to have them you know what or get off the pot. At the end of the day, the PR spike the Sox get for a significant move is real. Agents for FAs and GMs for other teams either know this or should be told this. As it plays out in my mind, Rick's part of the conversation is something akin to: "The deal on the table is open for X hours. It's worth far more to us if we do it before SoxFest opens. Not saying we'll stop talking if we don't do it by X, but you need to understand it won't be the same deal because we're giving you our best deal before SoxFest, so we can parlay it into positive PR and excitement. That's only common sense." Rick, if you're reading, feel free to use my strategy and/or my language. It's on me, bud. Well, buy me a churro at one of the cold April games.

Mod help appreciated to shorten this thread title so it makes sense in a viewing. This thread creating noob/boob didn't realize it was too long! edit: Thank you. Perfect.

Will You Be Surprised if the Sox Do NOT Acquire Another Significant Player Before SoxFest 2016? Yes ... because we've got an all-world 1-3 starting staff in Sale, Q, and Rodon; a middle of the order thumper in Abreu (who I think is due for a big year after injuries and a bit of the sophomore jinx); new talented offensive players for the next 2 years in Frazier and Lawrie; a potentially solid, perhaps 3 WAR catching tandem; a high-priced very good (even if not great) closer in Robertson, fronting an overall solid relief staff; and we have NOT finished the job. The offense could and should be made better. And any number of ways can bring improvements. Pick your poison: front line free agents like Fowler, Jackson, and Desmond; plug-a-hole free agents like Raburn and others; trade candidates like Ethier, Markakis, and others. My point right here is not to debate the pros and cons of each one of these potential player additions because we have thread after thread already doing that. My point here is simply to say that I would indeed be surprised if we didn't do SOMETHING, bring in SOMEONE, because there are holes to fill and ample players available to fill said holes. And if the above wasn't enough ... Yes (for a different reason) ... I would be VERY surprised if the generally PR conscious Sox allow SoxFest 2016 to get underway with the fairly decent excitement generated by Frazier and Lawrie having dissipated through the failure (for whatever reason) of landing ANY of the so-called Big Three. I always chuckle when I see posts that suggest the Sox management team is (for lack of a better term) "stupid." Hardly. The Sox are run by some very smart people. Sure, their "smart plans" might turn out to sometimes be misguided. Or, sometimes a plan might be solid, but it just doesn't work out. But they are not stupid. They know they've lost ground to the Cubs in this town. (And yes ... while games we play against the Cubs barely matter, we do compete with them every day for headlines and dollars in our hometown.) I would be very surprised, and disappointed, if they don't start SoxFest 2016 with one more bang, even if it's a minor one. If they don't, I wouldn't call it stupid, but I might call it "tone deaf."

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 08:50 PM) And couple corrections to you post. Sox could have a good scouting department unfortunately it's the player development group that's the issue. Sox get guys with potential but unfortunately can not develop the players to get the talent out of them. Secondly cubs dont don't get a pick for fowler. They get one but will be lost right away. Remember they signed both lackey and Heyward which each cost a pick. So they loose their 1st round pick and also the comp pick tied to fowler. They just will get their second round pick. I hadn't focused on that. Sounds right. But my point was the Sox-centric one -- one of the oft-repeated reasons to refrain from Fowler was (gasp) helping the Cubs. Signing Fowler doesn't help them. In fact, signing Fowler hurts them because I believe the Cubs want him back at a bargain-basement price, plus I think he absolutely brings a needed dimension to that team. The Cubs angle is a side issue. Signing Fowler helps US -- quantum of that help, TBD. Refraining from signing Fowler (or Desmond) in order to keep that #28 pick MIGHT help us -- but that will take 3-5 years to ascertain and we still have the customary allotment of picks anyway. I do understand those who might value this year's 3 in the top 50 thing more than I do -- it DOES have value -- but in my opinion, we've charted a strategy for this year so it's sort of goofy to stop with the strategy before it's completed.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 08:37 PM) Cy, you are killing it lately. Bravo!! Just keeping it real, Brother Fathom. Thanks.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 08:38 PM) I will be shocked if he can't put up a sub 4 in that park Count me shocked as well. 10 reasons: 10 -- Great pitcher's park, especially for flyball pitchers; 9 -- great defense; 8 -- GREAT battery mate. REASONS 1-7 ... Pitching all year in the National League. Yeah, All year. In the National League. I'd put the over/under for his Giants ERA at 3.20. Heck, John Danks is probably sub 3.50 in that park in the NL (and I wouldn't be surprised if Danks is a deadline acquisition this year for some NL team if the Sox are out of it).

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 07:14 PM) It would be just a bit ironic if the Sox signed Fowler. Cubs traded Samardzija to Oakland who later trades Samardzija to the Sox. Samardzija turns down the the QO netting the Sox a comp pick, Sox sign Fow!er and that Samardzija comp pick goes to the cubs. Talk about coming full circle. I like the idea of the Sox having 3 picks in the first two rounds but having two speedy players at the top of the lineup with good OBP sounds pretty damn good. I will not complain if the Sox do end up signing Fowler. I have no problem either with the Sox signing Fowler. When the so-called Big Three were in play, I was most interested in Gordon because I felt his overall skill set best fit what the Sox needed. Granted, part of the Gordon package was near-elite play in LF and Fowler is at best an adequate OFer (but Avi is currently so bad out there that bringing in anybody that results in less defensive innings for Avi is an overall net gain). But on the offensive side, Fowler brings many of the same offensive gifts that Gordon would have brought -- high OBP, lots of doubles, 13-17 HRs, and left-handedness (when he isn't hitting right-handed). I recognize I'm in the minority, but I have no problem giving away our comp round pick provided we still have our first and second round picks to play prospect lottery. When we kept Samardzija post trade deadline -- knowing we'd give him a QO and wind-up with a comp round pick -- it gave us an asset. Great, one way to use that asset is to use our superior amateur scouting capabilities and turn a top 30 pick into a can't miss stud player. Except wait -- we don't have a superior amateur scouting system, do we? Not by any metric. And what's more, even if we did, once you get past the top 10-12 in any given draft there are many, many more misses than hits on the major league prospects of the selected player. Yeah, it's valuable, but that pick is not THAT valuable. Losing that pick to pick-up a Dexter Fowler brings value too. In this case, certain value because he WILL play in the bigs, and at worst he adds skills we don't already have, and at best he turns into the missing link that ignites a lineup that for the first time in a few years has some actual overall offensive capabilities. And ... we still have the customary full set of draft picks (we just lose that extra overall #28 pick, or whatever the current high 20s number is). By the way, while it makes a good story, the Cubs don't get THE PICK we were given when Samardzija turned down the QO and was signed by the Giants. Nobody gets that pick. If we sign Fowler, we lose that pick, but it just disappears into thin air. The Cubs get A PICK (not OUR pick) when their guy Fowler is signed by anybody. The most we're doing to help the Cubs is you can say that their pick is one pick higher than it otherwise would have been because our pick disappeared. But that would happen if virtually any team signed Fowler -- and somebody will. Sign Fowler. OR, sign Desmond AND Jackson. Lose one pick and one only. We started a plan and have yet to finish it. There are ample ways to still improve in the OF, or just generally on offense. Finish your plan, Rick.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) Picks are more than likely not to produce an mlb player so if the contract is a good one they will do it. EXACTLY. Sin duda, dude. Having a draft pick in a particular year is indeed an asset. It's currency. If you're a team that excels in selecting players, then that currency has a certain value. If you look in your team mirror and you arguably, well, blow at drafting OTHER than picking some obvious studs at the top of a draft (where you hope not to be anyway), then that currency has a different value. If taking on the right FA costs you a relatively high draft pick -- in a year when that was an additional pick anyway and you still have a high #1 and #2 -- then you do it when you're loading for the next two years anyway. The FA you get (or a combo of FAs if you go Desmond/Jackson) are guaranteed big leaguers, albeit with risks attached to both. That high 20s draft pick you give up has no such guarantee. Frankly, not even close. And anticipating the counter arguments ... YES, you surely don't want to do this year after year. Do it every year like this and you've taken your chances to ever develop a strong and deep farm system from slim to none. I'm talking THIS YEAR ... THESE circumstances ... because we've already committed to going for it for the next two years

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) This would be fine if our core players didn't age but this patience will just guarantee a lost decade of white sox baseball. They could have decided to reload with Q but, this is the corner they backed themselves into. All true. But once they backed themselves into this corner, committed to a plan, you finish it. Too bad. All got crazy for the so-called Big Three. Fine. Take a pass. Don't be insane. But finish the job elsewhere. To me, this means Jackson/Desmond. Yep, lose a pick. One stinkin pick (out of the three important picks). Chances of getting value out of the J/D combo are a lot better than value from that second pick. Besides, finish this year's plan since we've already committed!

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 08:35 AM) I don't see how anyone can dog the Sox for not signing him. 27.5 million a year for him is ridiculous. Especially being if he has a good year he's gone, if he has a decent year he is probably gone. The only way he stays is if he sucks. Then we are on the hook for 42.5 over 2 years. Then the ones that are b****ing and moaning now (not saying anyone here) will be the ones that are b****ing and moaning over a bad contract having 21.5 million tied up in 1 guy that flopped completely. It's like teachers with snow days... complain when they have to go to school when it snows, complain more when they have to make up days at the end of the year. Exactly. Determine his reasonable value. Then, if circumstances demand it, even stretch beyond reasonable. I would have stretched a great deal because this team needs to finish the job and show some guts. But, if the Mets deal is as reported, that's looney tunes territory (for a team). You do that for a Mike Trout, or 2-3 others, but no way for a guy with Cespedes's track record. I'd bet Greg's newest house that the Sox were trying until it got crazy (and sure sounds as if it would have taken even crazier to take him away from his NY preference). I think we learn a lot about Hahn by seeing whether we strike quickly with Plan B. Plan A1-A3 were always unlikely, at best.

Mixed feelings for me on this one. If the deal is roughly as reported, Cespedes got just about the fair market price many experts predicted, but with the asterisk being he'll likely opt out after 1 year if he rolls out a Herculean 2016 to match his second-half of 2015. For players who like where they're at (see Alex Gordon), you need to knock out the champion (incumbent), not just beat them on points. The Sox PROBABLY offered something similar and didn't knock him out. And it sure seems that NO OTHER TEAMS tried to snag him with an above-market offer either (the Nats supposed 5 year offer supposedly have substantial deferred dollars and not likely a 1 year opt out). Bottom-line sure seems to be nobody tried too hard to lure him away from the Mets. Personally, playing armchair GM, if I'm Hahn, I stretch to lure him away. In my opinion, the upsides of Cespedes is worth taking on risks. In theory, he solves a lot of problems and brings a dash of fear into the lineup. And we've failed the same way so often before. Maybe you fail again, but let's try something different (and to me, failing with Dunn and LaRoche are very different animals than any possible failure with Cespedes). I hope Cespedes destroys the Cubs all season long as well, because: (1) duh, I can't stand the Cubs (more accurately, Cubs fans); and (2) I think that Cespedes might be a monster and I wouldn't mind seeing the Sox brain trust humbled a bit by not picking the low hanging fruit. No contradictions from me -- I think the Sox decision makers do things the right way, analyze their baseball decisions, and run a professional and measured business; unfortunately, they rock in assessing quality pitching, but they are arguably horrible in analyzing the offensive game.