Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) I like Quintana, but I would do this trade before Toronto could change their mind. Yeah, same here, lol.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) If they do trade a starter, I think it's more than likely they sign a free agent to compete for a spot in the rotation. I don't think it would be a big money guy, but a guy like Johnson could make some sense depending on health. I think Johnson is going to get paid more than we think he should. More realistic is probably a guy like Dan Haren.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) Our pitching depth is grossly overstated on this board. We should not be looking to trade Santiago or Q unless we bet blown away by an offer. You trade one, and a strength is no longer a strength. Agreed

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) I'd rather trade Santiago... Quintana seems like he'll have more success in the long run. Probably you are not alone in this feeling -- and thus Quintana would be expected to be much more valuable.

I'm hoping for Rahm Emanuel

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 11:07 PM) I don't agree with this at all. A well constructed offense can produce more than the sum of the individual parts. For example, a guy like Adam Dunn is going to be a lot more valuable to the Sox if there are people on-base when he hits his home-runs. Does adding a high OBP leadoff guy improve Dunn's WAR? No, but it can make him more productive. I'm not accusing you of this, but WAR is never going to be the be-all-end-all. At the end of the day, baseball is still a team sport and WAR will never be able to account for everything. Not all upgrades in terms of WAR are necessarily equal. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that if Headley is a substantial upgrade over Gillaspie, then he's a substantial upgrade over Gillaspie whether you bat him fourth or ninth. You can maximize the value of each player by placing them in roles based on their skillsets, but event sequencing has been shown to be unpredictable enough that you won't be able to control for baserunners effectively enough to make more than a two win difference between the worst possible lineup construction (pitcher batting fourth, etc.) and the best possible construction. The difference between any half decent logical set up and the ideal are drastically smaller. When all is said and done, the differences in sequencing will be huge, but from a simulation standpoint, and thus a roster construction standpoint, you don't benefit from pigeonholing hitters into 'roles' -- basically you want the guys that get on base the most to be at the top of the lineup so they get the most at bats, and you want the guys with high slugging percentage right behind them so they bat second most. This is the same no matter how your team is constructed.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 10:05 PM) I don't think he is capable of hitting clean up. The Sox are probably targeting a left handed clean up hitter. If they acquired Headley, that still leaves a hole at that spot in the lineup. You don't get extra points for having a prototypical lineup. An upgrade is an upgrade. However much better a new player is than the incumbent, that's how much better your team gets.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 05:03 PM) No, but Butler player third base in college, and with our defense, he could definitely be an option there. Same goes for LF if we trade De Aza, move Avi to center and Dayan to right. What makes you think he can do that now? Butler probably weighed 50 less pounds in college. He's older, fatter, and hasn't practiced there in YEARS. He's not even a good first baseman. Plus, there's a big difference between being good enough to handle a position at the collegiate level and being able to handle it at the big league level.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) He wasn't too bad at LF if I remember correctly. They just needed Gordon to go there. And he's played 3rd in college/high school. Zack Greinke played Shortstop in high school, do you think he's an option there 10 years later in the big leagues?

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 04:41 PM) He also plays 3B/LF. lol wat

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) Royals listening to offers for Billy Butler per MLBTR. I just want to note that my girlfriend came up with an excellent nickname for him that we used all last year: Billy Butthole

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) The reason I was big on the Abreu signing is that right now I can say the Sox have a complete roster where if everything goes right and everyone develops and they come out of spring training awake and they remember that they're supposed to catch the ball, this team could compete right now. Without Abreu I would have said they have a gigantic gaping hole at 1b and that would prevent them from competing. If we're going to cut ties with someone now...Viciedo, De Aza, Phegley, Beckham...fine, but in some ways it has to be done based on information I don't have. I don't know how those guys worked with the coaching staff, how they were in the locker room, or what kinds of changes they were willing to make last year. That kind of info has to be big in deciding to replace on of those guys now. Yeah I mean it's within the realm of possibility, but it isn't anything close to likely. A lot of these FAs just come with too much long term risk for the low chances we have this year. I think we'll be in a much better position to contemplate these types of signings next offseason. And if a miracle happens and we compete, we can snag some dudes at the deadline.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) The problem right now is figuring out which guys are going to be contributors. If Phegley, Viciedo, Abreu, and Garcia all hit next year and Gillaspie regresses, then if we'd done this move already it could put us in the playoffs. But, if Gillaspie and Keppinger in a platoon put up sort of what we might expect them to do and another hitter struggles...well then for example we'd have been much better off replacing Phegley with a high-salary McCann than we would have been taking on Headley. That's the problem...we have talent at a number of spots, but talent often doesn't equal production. To turn this around rapidly we need to replace the guys who won't produce with guys who will. Which ones are they? Which is why what we need is a transitional year, which I think is what we will get in 2014. Acquisitions this year should be limited those those that will productive for years and not handcuff us financially. It won't be fun, but we need it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 03:23 PM) Thing is you have to start somewhere. If you use this thinking the only reL way to get there is through ground-up development, which I think is not in the cards for us. No, that's not true. You don't need to get all the way through dev. You need to get half decent through dev and then start making signings and trades. The signings and trades can even be half of it if you think about the stars you'd be targeting.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:38 PM) Hypothetically speaking... If Semien is the player we all hope he is then he takes over at 3B for cheap. I'd keep him in the minors and see what Gillaspie does in his 2nd year, if he performs then you trade Lexi and play Semien at short. The infield would then be Gillaspie-Semien-Cano-Abreu for awhile. If Gillaspie doesn't improve then you play Marcus at 3rd and keep Lexi. Hopefully after the last 2 years of Lexis contract Tim Anderson would be ready to take over. That's Semien-Lexi-Cano-Abreu for 2 years then Semien-Anderson-Cano-Abreu after that. With Cano signed I could see the Sox moving Micah Johnson to CF(this has been talked about anyway). Keep De Aza or add a stop gap player like Dejesus for a couple years while Micah is adjusting. Jacob May is also a guy who I could see in CF after 2 years. LF or DH could go to Tank with the Sox signing a free agent for the other position Hopefully the Sox can trade a pitcher for a long term catcher. I know that's banking on a few guys who I probably shouldn't bank on but they're there, and hypothetically speaking it could work. But see this is a great argument that now isn't the time. It's not that it COULDN'T work out, it's just that you have to see what you've got in your core first. Right now, there are way more scenarios where it doesn't work out than where it does, and the stakes of a long-term financially crippling contract are what leads teams to years of being bad.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) Probably and hopefully significantly lower. I'd be all for bringing in Headley, but I would only be willing to part with a couple mid-level prospects. Which is why the Padres won't trade him. They will be able to do better at the deadline if he bounces back at all.

QUOTE (coco1997 @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) Some names tossed around on 670 this morning... The Cuban Blockade Gitmo Cubanerko (My favorite) I wholeheartedly endorse Cubanerko

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) As it would stand right now the payroll next year would be around 90 mill next year with Cano on the team. They would have the money to extend Q and replace Dunn. Then what? What about C, 3B, LF, and CF? Do our 4/5 starters and RF have what it takes to break out? Why are we so eager to become the Cubs? If we dig in and fall short, we are looking at a ifnancial disaster. We need to have SOME patience. They need a year to figure out what they have in the core and if it's a team that's a couple big pieces from contention, THEN you splurge. Coming of a 99 loss season, there is little argument that the team is within reach. The stakes are too high to go allin right now.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) The Tigers already had big contracts like Verlander and Cabrera who were making big money though. The Sox have a team friendly Sale contract and potentially "cheap" JD Abreu deal as the only long term investments. And a WHOLE bunches of deep holes to fill without much help coming from the farm.

This says that the White Sox are "among teams that could be looking for a 3B upgrade"

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 11:59 AM) There's only been 3 of them in history, Ryan Howard(Who won a WS 2 years before the contract and then got bit by the injury bug), King Felix, and ARod so you can't really pull from that. And why aren't the Sox really in position to do so? Like I said in an earlier post, adding Canos 25M this year puts the payroll at 90M. Next year they have Dunns 15M coming off the books, the following year they have Lexi/Keppingers 14M coming of the books, the year after that they have Danks 14 or whatever coming off the books. If they keep the payroll around 120M every year I think they could absolutely be in the position to field a good team. Because when teams give those contracts, they are borrowing from their future to help their present. They are willing to be in trouble later to put themselves over the edge now. This is the opposite position that the White Sox are in.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 10:22 AM) If the Reds gave us 3-4 million dollars a year for the duration of Phillips contract I would take him. Plus talent? Gonna cost you a pitcher and prospect, most likely.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 06:45 PM) You don't spend just because you feel bad if you don't spend $X. Our available money will determine how much we can spend, but not how much we will. Hahn isn't going to hand out/take on crap contracts just to make sure we hit our budget ceiling. It just gives him the flexibility to spend the maximum appropriate amount on a given player. This!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 03:37 PM) But...if the opening day payroll comes in around $100 million...the people who have been screaming for years that the Sox are cheap will actually have a point for once. (That number chosen because they also get over $10 million to spend on kids next year...that would bring them roughly to the total amount they spent last year when you account for the trades...and they get the extra TV money on top of that). What's the point though? That payroll was cut a year after one the highest payrolls in franchise history led to 99 losses and a decline in attendance for the 7th straight year? It would be ridiculous to expect payroll to increase immediately.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) Doesn't mean it will ever be invested into players though. Right, exactly. I'm just saying this is Jerry and his investors' money -- they aren't going to spend it just for the sake of spending it.