The Ultimate Champion

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) Maybe for Jake at State Farm. WTF is Jake from State Farm doing up at 3am anyway? Whacking it to Progressive Flo of course. Something about that chick, maybe it's that they're competitors? Maybe it's the attitude, or the fact she's a lil thick. Anyways they didn't show it on the commercial but when the call beeped in his ear he had to pull up his pants before he answered it. Those khakis are f***in stained.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) Too many moving pieces, and way too much risk for the GM's involved. The Peavy deal is a better example...where we got Garcia and Montas. I just don't see GM's of playoff-contending teams mortgaging their future. The Cardinals refused over and over again last season, same with the Pirates. Now the A's, that's a different story...but they wanted veteran starting pitching, and Q's not quite considered to be in that category as of yet. ???? The PEAVY DEAL??? That's your formula for a Q deal? REALLY???? No. No. No. If you take back 4 spects/unproven MLB guys for Q they are all excellent. Read: they are all at Garcia's level or less than that but are still better prospects than Montas was, and none of them are anywhere near Rondon/Wendleken status, they're waaaaay above that. Nick Swisher brought in Gio and De Los Santos from us plus Sweeney, and DLS at that point was our most celebrated prospect. To move Q you need twice that return.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) Trading Petricka now would be dumb because he's likely to be the next closer and his value would increase significantly (like Reed's did) if he could put together a couple of seasons of 30+ saves. He's not established enough yet as a major leaguer where a contending team would pay a premium, even as a set-up guy. When the playoffs come, managers are much more comfortable with vets. I wouldn't "shop" him really for the reasons you mentioned. I'm just talking within the context of a Q deal. We'd ask for so much back that the other team would want more, like help in the pen. And if you are another team and you want a reliever from the Sox, who do you want more than anyone else? Probably Petricka. And so in the context of a hypothetical Q deal where we would need to add more without taking away from the position player/SP "core" of our team, would holding onto any reliever including Petricka be worth foregoing a move that we thought made sense and that we really wanted to make? That's kind of what I'm saying. I don't think Q goes anywhere. But if so I think that's the kind of formula, we send out 2 MLB pieces with Q the main guy and a lesser but still quality piece that helps a contender right now, and we get back lots of prospects. This is kind of a similar formula to the Tex deal where Mahay went, the Shark deal where Hamel was really a second piece there, the Bedard/Sherrill deal, etc. Lots of big deals follow this same model. Maybe Beckham or Tank could be that second piece then but we'd be eating salary there probably, which is fine, in such a scenario we shouldn't really care.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 09:46 AM) If we trade Q, we might as blow the whole thing up. IMO, he's just as important to competing in 2015/2016 as Sale & Abreu. I disagree. Rodon could slide into the #3 slot long-term and Danks could be the #5, and a quality option at that. I still DO NOT see us long-term having a 4 lefty rotation. It'll be L-R-L-R-L. Of course our best lineup there would be Sale-R-Q/Rodon-R-Q/Rodon but IF you can get a big time haul for Q to where we feel we are getting a RHSP slot filled plus we're filling an OF hole or picking up that big lefty bat, or grabbing a true SS, etc. then that's something you have to consider. But we'd have to be very careful. Trading Q for anything will likely at least set our rotation back a year, but if we trade Q and we don't get also back a quantity or quality then we'll set ourselves back *and* will likely lose the deal on the scorecards as well when it is all said and done. But let's say there is a 3-way where we get back Gregorius from AZ plus a top-end starting pitching prospect and a slugging lefty 1B/DH/corner OF prospect who we think is up by midseason 2015, and we're also getting a couple high ceiling MiLB pieces in Low A ... it would be very tough to pass that thing up. I don't think our FO would.

Beckham will bring back a talented player, or at least he should. If he's MLB-ready or close to it then his numbers probably will be bad and people will be upset. If his numbers are good then he's probably in the minors at AA or below and he has a flaw in his game that prevents prospect people from ranking him in the top-10 of his former team's system. And people will of course be upset. But Beckham *should* bring back a player at a talent level to where *if* things work out he is an above average MLB SP or position player. That should be his value. And the "smaller" deals are what will get this team back into contention, not a bunch of blockbusters.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) Harrelson's already said Stroman is the best young RH pitcher (best stuff, etc.) he's seen this season. Those quotes would be used against Hahn, haha. Stroman looked terrific. That's the kind of return you'd need, Stroman+ 2 much smaller but still interesting pieces, but that's the kind of deal that probably has both GMs worrying too much to get a deal done. Q has a LOT of value, and he's already very good and lefthanded. Stroman does look really good though, and maybe you can see him as being just as good or even better. Tough to do that kind of deal. IMO a Q deal is like 5-for-1 or 6-for-2 where we send out something like Q and Petricka and get back a ton of really good prospects in the AA and below range and probably with a MLB piece or 2 thrown in of lesser quality. I think the Haren deal is a great comp for what we'd need out of Q. The Texeira deal with the Rangers is another great example but I don't like using that one because so many of those players turned out, it just makes it seem unrealistic. That was a lot of good luck there IMO, not exactly "Braves are stupid Rangers are geniuses" or anything.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 09:08 AM) Again, I don't think the Sox are dealing Viciedo unless they get a crazy offer. Where there is smoke there is a fire and also a white man dumb enough to advertise to his enemy where he will be sleeping. There has been smoke since the 2012-13 offseason, so a year and a half now. Hmm, I wonder who started it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) I think the other missing feature is that there's no power from the LH side. This is the main thing right here. The Sox need a young, big lefty power bat. Having DH and a corner OF spot open helps, but really it doesn't matter what position this guy plays, Hahn just needs to acquire him and stick him somewhere. There is virtually no point in tossing out all these names to do this or that. We're in a spot where Hahn is going to continue looking to sign INTL FA's, make trades and claims, etc. for younger types that help fit the long term picture and then from there he'll just bring in stopgaps. It's July, November is 4 months away, and just go back to March to see how much things change in 4 months worth of baseball. Back in March Soriano may have been a potential FA option (just released), Reimold may have been a trade candidate (waived and we didn't claim him), Morse and Cruz were questionable 1 year guys but now they look like potential options, etc. There's no reason to worry about finding veteran players in July, especially since we're not going to be fielding a complete team come Opening Day 2015. Hahn will still mostly spend the deadline and this offseason looking for long-term fits and then he'll just fill in the gaps afterwards.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) The Padres extended Seth Smith yesterday. Options are dwindling for LF, especially a LH-hitting LFer. Do you want to be like the Red Sox and have 12 home runs combined out of your outfield on July 8th, 2015? If Bradley Jr. is the equivalent of Adam Eaton, then Nava/Holt/Sizemore/Victorino/Gomes is a fair approximation of what we'll have next season. I'd take zero HRs out of the entire OF if every player hustled and played the field like Eaton. I'd certainly like to see Eaton use his legs a lot more, but 3 Eatons and a ton of speed on the basepaths, a slap-it-down-the-line approach with men on, and a f***truck load of run prevention will work for me. Seriously, ideally I'd like to have lots of BA OBP and SLG and speed and so on out of every single position on the diamond but Dayan Viciedo is as much of an OF as I am a Ukranian figure skater. You have to be able to play the position first. For me Tank is a DH if he stays here, but it looks like Hahn doesn't have him in his plans. But that's fine, if you trade Tank for a SP or something then great, you can sign a DH as a FA. But no matter what Tank shouldn't be in the OF.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 08:03 AM) More exhaggeration. Carlton and Foster were picked up after they cleared waivers. White Sox fans for years had been calling for LaRussa's firing. Hawk did claim Bonilla as a rule 5, and traded him back to Pittsburgh for Jose DeLeon who eventually turned into Lance Johnson. Not exactly giving him away. He also traded a bunch of crap to Seattle for Ivan Calderon who was pretty productive and turned into Tim Raines. His horribleness as a GM is vastly overstated. One big reason he took over was the minor league system was even worse than it is now and the organization had no depth. The team was doomed in 1986. Seaver didn't want to be in Chicago and Britt Burns who Hawk did trade, never pitched again after a stellar 1985. Thank you for this history lesson, I did not know this. I think a lot about Hawk is vastly overstated, mainly when people question his knowledge of the game. The guy, as Stone says, knows the game backwards and forwards. Maybe he wasn't cut out to be a GM but neither are any of us fans. And also I'm not sure about that era but I am guessing that back then getting good video on someone was probably next to impossible given the technology and it would have been a s***load more difficult to gather current, quality scouting observations and then access all of that information when necessary. Back then I imagine being a GM was a lot more of a "he said/she said" sort of thing than the pseudoscience it has become today.

Also kudos to Dayan, keep bumping up that trade value. Mariners were watching right? They should have been. Watching and dreaming all over him. And slobbering.

Carroll did a great job pounding the zone with strikes, keeping his sinker mostly down and working inside. Boston hitters then did a great job of getting themselves out. That Boston lineup... wow, I was watching that thinking "Corpseball Era Sox" the whole time. Just a pathetic offensive effort out of those guys. They should be ashamed to be in the presence of a winner like AJ Pierzynski, who funnily enough seemed to be the only guy with a Major League approach out of what I saw.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 06:09 PM) This thread, it makes no sense and yet I keep coming back to it. Its like your balls itch but your in a straight jacket. That would be terrible. Now since an important part of this thread is about a testicle-eating fish that commonly mistakes human balls for tree balls, that makes me wonder, what if there is some South American ant species that lives in the same tree and could also mistake the nuts of that tree for the nuts of a human? Imagine being buck naked spread eagle strapped to a tree and these ants are crawling up your legs and they're all over your testicles but you just cannot scratch them. I wonder if such ants exist & whether I could get a hold of a colony.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 06:01 PM) But how can you say Maurer's floor is a high quality relief pitcher, when he's been nothing but a low quality pitcher over any sustained period of measurement thusfar? So to me, another piece is warranted. I guess I mean that with his arm, if he throws strikes, he's a late inning reliever of some kind. But if he doesn't throw strikes then he's not a Major League player. You could then say that Maurer's ultimate floor is a minor league player. But then again, given Tank's atrocious defense, as an all-bat right-handed platoon bat that can't really play the field much, his ultimate floor is basically the same thing, a minor leaguer or one of those guys who bounces around team to team always making under $2M per, mostly around the minimum to $1M. So in either case you are potentially dealing with something just about worthless. Still, it all depends on Coop. All you want IMO is talent out of Viciedo, not some low ceiling crap that can't even become at least a #3. Get an arm and if Coop likes him a lot and thinks he can work some magic, then you look at that deal as trading for a potential mid-to-top end of the rotation starter. If that's the player you want, and the second piece is likely to be far lesser anyway, don't get too greedy. Get the guy you want and move on.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) i will trade this thread for a bag of the topic Would you drive them to the airport though? How is your drive tool anyway?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) Balls? I found that interesting. So there is a fish that likes to suck balls, but only the balls of a tree normally, however it turns out that human balls look like a certain tree's balls. I'm not sure why but I found that article more inspiring than frightening. Unfortunately it says the ball munching fish can't survive in cold water I wish they could. I would catch a bunch of them & release them into those s***ty retention ponds developers put in the middle of those s***ty neighborhoods. That would be awesome.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) Well this is a very worthwhile and informative thread. I don't think it's a desperate cry for attention at all. So you're from Dickeyville, eh?

Also my guess is that this thread isn't in the Trade Winds forum because Dunn isn't really a trade he's just a salary dump/small roster move.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 12:54 PM) No big deal; we certainly weren't going to get a ton anyway. Texas will probably move him this month - we'll see what they get. They'll get a legit prospect IMO. Not anybody world-beating but someone who would be solidly top-10 in our system and a quality second piece like a reliever or someone with ceiling who is far away. With Texas there is always the possibility of an expanded deal of Rios + RP which could bring in a nice return. But whatever they get, if after the deal we call the Rangers and offer Leury Garcia straight-up for their Rios return they'll laugh us off the phone.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) Maurer has a good arm. We don't know if he can be fixed - he has the talent to be fixed. But his production has been decidedly worse than Viciedo's and Seattle's the team in imminent need, so I would hope we could add another piece. You always hope for the best return possible but if you make a deal and get an arm like that, if he turns things around under Coop, then unless you are giving up an All-Star or something, you're probably getting the better end of that deal by a good portion. For Viciedo, as disappointing as he has been, I think that's a pretty fair deal straight-up. 1-for-1, my high ceiling bust for yours. Maurer would be the cheaper of the two and come with more years team control right? Also if Viciedo's floor is a bad defensive 4th OF and PH while Maurer's floor is a quality RP then I think we should accept that deal and be done with it if that's the best Seattle will do. Of course it all depends on what Coop says, but if Coop sees something in a kid like that then IMO you move quickly before Seattle trades him to someone else.

Howdy, neighbor!

Hahn is gonna trade EREBODY and gonna get s***! Yeah!!! BALLLS!!!!

BALLS!!

TRADE WINDS!!! BALLS!!!!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) I think the Sox should look to move more money. The more we can free up for international FA's in future the better. Additionally, it will allow club to be flexible in acquiring younger talent and having the resources to sign it (as well as giving money to new core players to continue in this retool). Just my 2 cents. I'm not sure where Jerry's caps are re: international players but I am guessing we probably just about hit it on Abreu and were probably overboard in our bidding for Tanaka. I don't know if we'll go crazy on anyone out there. At this point (looking 2015+) thanks in HUGE part to the extensions of Sale and Q, we're actually a "take on money for talent" team than a "move money" team. I think if someone calls Hahn and offers to take on Danks' contract giving nothing back, honestly, I don't think he makes that deal.