Eminor3rd

Nah. No one on that list can be expected to be good for more than the next couple seasons.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 18, 2017 -> 01:53 PM) But for a guy like Albies? You address the Sanchez part of the argument here, but not really the Albies part. That's all I'm saying -- that the presence of Sanchez should not affect our ask on trades at all.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 12:44 PM) I don't know that I even do believe in Sanchez yet, but that profile is so dependent upon average that there's a lot of bust potential there. That's what scares me most. Yeah, I absolutely believe in him as a useful MLB player, but definitely not as a type of guy who is good enough that you avoid opportunities to acquire better players as an upgrade. He would be a strong utility-man who could very adequately rest three key positions in the infield, and that's nothing to shake a stick at, especially at arb/pre-arb prices.

We need a board-wide training session on creating polls that allow multiple selections.

The reality is we just don't really know what we have with him yet. Physical specimen? Yes. Exciting prospect? Of course. But there are many many dudes who can run into one but can't hit MLB pitching. We're going to need at least the rest of this season to make any type of useful guess at a timeline.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 05:16 PM) Watson and Melancon aren't that exciting. Herrera is in Q territory, they have to hold onto him. So available options aren't exactly enticing. Herrera is a pending FA though, right?

Yeah I'd say that's 2-3 spots high for Burdi, and I agree that Stephens > Diaz, though I think that's about the range they both belong. Overall, though, I'd say that's about right. Definitely feels weird to have the 1st round pick fall outside of the top ten.

Fantastic work as usual.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) When compared to what you might lose out by having to pay him arbitration? I'm not sure I agree here. I could be mis-remembering, but isn't Jones deal just a couple million every year? If you figure that the roster spots costs $600k at minimum, you're only talking about being out a few million over the course of a few seasons. And if he's good, he could stand to earn much more than that in arbitration.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 03:17 PM) Would extending Kahnle to a team friendly deal (like Nate Jones) and buying out his arb years, make him more valuable? I would think so -- the Nate Jones deal is so cheap that it would make pretty much ANY decent player more valuable. Even if Kahnle busts entirely, the amount of salary he'd be owed each year is just a step above rounding error.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 02:59 PM) I'm with you. Case in point is the Chapman and Miller deals last year. Chapman was a pure three month rental for the Cubs, and it cost them Torres. Miller was more than a rental, but returned Frazier and Sheffield plus a couple of flyers. Robertson/Swarzak/Kahnle are not on their level certainly, but I'd be interested if Robertson + Kahnle + cash could be enough to push them over the edge and deal Robles + Price-wise, your logic is sound, but it's predicated on the false assumption that market price for players remains stable over any significant period of time. Every time a trade happens in the MLB, the amount of supply AND demand in the market changes substantially. The buyer willing to pay the highest price for the player just left the market. Sure the Cubs were willing to give up Torres for Miller in 2016, but it is no longer 2016, the Cubs no longer have Torres, and the Cubs are no longer buying relievers. Also, Robertson isn't nearly as good as Miller, and the world has almost universally agreed that the trade was an overpay that only made sense because the Cubs ended up winning the title. There are so many dynamic, unique factors to each trade season that it just doesn't make sense to use previous season's trades as baselines for player value, IMO.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 02:11 PM) Let me ask you this...do you think it is improbable that they go out and get 2 relievers on the market? I think it's improbable that they get 2 pricey relievers, but I don't think it's necessarily improbable that they get two guys. I could absolutely see them jumping on a waiver pickup, promoting a prospect like Fedde, or buying low on a cheap has-been for one role, and then paying up for a market-rate guy as a "closer." I think it's less likely, but certainly possible that they get Robertson + Swarzak and give up a guy like Soto. But who knows, surprises happen.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) One troubling thing though: I am worried about the Sox lack of regard for defense. It is possible to have an infield of Burger, Anderson, Moncada, Sheets and Collins in a couple of years. Some of those guys could be average-ish, but overall that's not very good. That's a good point. How many "but the Sox seem to believe he can stick at _______" can you have before the defensive unit becomes unplayable as a unit?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) Understood, but that was the question posed. We were asked to say what would we require to trade these three players. As much as this doesn't happen for the Nationals, it doesn't happen for the White Sox either. Theoretically, the Nats could include two of their s***ty relievers in the package to simplify things a bit. Either way, just as much as Q can say Robles isn't coming back, I can say you aren't getting my best 3 relievers. Yes, agreed. I just think I'm saying that Rizzo would never ask for three relievers in the first place.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:04 PM) Guys, Robles isn't happening without Moncada or Kopech going back This ^ Guys like Robles are simply not part of the conversation for non-legendary relief pitchers. You can make an argument that three of them are equal in value to Robles, but as mentioned before, the actual mechanics of adding three pitchers to your 25-man roster at the same time are incredibly complicated and come with additional costs, like clubhouse stability and possibly the loss of other players who are bad now but might be useful down the road. It works in video games but not in reality.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 13, 2017 -> 06:04 AM) Hostetler likes his chances at 3B. If this organization has truly improved with prospects getting better defensively (Collins looks great this year) then I like the kid's chances of staying there. I love Burger as a hitter. If he stays at 3B (which he probably will) he's a very, very good prospect. And with the Sheets selection, the Sox feel that way about his future there too. I think that if we're being truly fair, it's not true to say he'll "probably" stay at third. I think we can say there's a "real chance" he stays at third.

Fisher is my dude

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 12, 2017 -> 07:04 PM) Easily imaginable if they don't think White can play in the outfield. The stuff I'm reading makes it seem really unlikely that Burger makes it to the MLB as a 3B. If you think he does, I suppose that would change the outlook for sure.

Underslot only makes sense if there's some crazy deal to be had. No one you're getting at 49 is going to be worth passing on a first-half 1st round talent. And if the draft is this weak, what are you excited for in rounds 3-8? I just can't imagine picking Burger over White.

Non-athletic, weaker division hitter with good-not-great stats

WOW WTF

I mean it's gonna be JBB or Kendall

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 12, 2017 -> 06:04 PM) That's not the f***ing surprise we need, dammit.

Man. Huira down

Hopefully Mil is still on Adell