The Ultimate Champion

When do you start attending games simply to wear a paper bag over your head? And I thought we had an emoticon for that, maybe not?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 08:03 AM) the f***? Edwin Jackson's ERA with the White Sox was 3.66 over 30 starts. Hudson was great down the stretch for Arizona, but let's not act like Jackson s*** the bed. And also, Jackson's stuff was better than Hudson's ever will be, and beyond the regular season stats, I think Kenny made that trade thinking that if you get into the playoffs & Jackson ends up your 3 or 4 you have a guy who could dominate and destroy. Didn't work out but at least we tried.

IMO the trade winds forum only makes sense when the team is in contention/worth watching, because then it separates your general team talk from trade rumors. HOwever during this kind of season there is no reason, because new players (whether potential trade acquisitions, signings, call-ups, etc.) are the only interesting part anyway.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) So then, by that theory, Edwin Jackson was worth about 1/2 of, say, Jeff Keppinger. I think because of the way Teahen just disappeared from the majors, we're now undervaluing what some scouts thought about Zach Stewart at the time of the trade. Because when the subject of Keppinger comes up as a "waste of money," nobody really makes a big deal about it (that at some point, we're going to have to use the leverage of an asset to get his salary off the payroll)...yet essentially we traded Daniel Hudson for Mark Teahen in the end because we didn't win anything with Jackson. See I view that trade totally differently. The Teahen trade & extension itself was dumb, but the second Jackson deal was KW taking advantage of the Jays desire for Rasmus. The Cards wanted EJax & weren't going to make that deal without him, so Kenny rightfully got a good prospect out of them (Stewart was a good, highly rated prospect with a nice arm who busted, as is typical, let's not rewrite history) and then Kenny made them eat Teahen's deal. Frasor was the add-on kind of piece there. That was actually a huge haul for Kenny for a 1/2 season of Jackson, and an excellent example of him taking advantage of a very unique situation. The lamenting of the Jackson-Hudson deal just needs to disappear from these boards. We tried to win, we didn't, oh well. We didn't miss a beat in the SP department, we actually got better even without anyone we were talking about at the time coming through. Still the biggest & most hurtful move during that time period was the one we didn't make, where JR blocked KW from firing Ozzie's ass.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) Truce. Yes, I'd make that deal. I only fall on the side of keeping Reed because I don't think a deal of that magnitude is available with so many alternative RPs on the market -- but if Reed can go for a top 30-ish hitting prospect, I'd do it. I think most of Reed's value is in his team control rather than his ability to be an impact player. I completely understand if you don't think we'll be able to get out of Reed what we should get out of Reed. If not, I am 100% on your side, you don't give him away, you don't trade him just to trade him.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) Yeah no argument. I really like Reed as a White Sox fan, but I have no problem with that whatsoever. If the Nats offered Rendon for Reed (hypothetically, obviously, their bullpen is fine), then yeah, I'd have no problem with such a deal whatsoever. Then why the f*** did YOU VOTE NO JUST TO SPITE ME!?!?!? You're a mod, I expect better of you! Please go back and change your vote to YES as I had specifically requested (the poll is in another thread). I never once said we should heavily shop Reed' for scraps. You admitted Castellanos was a fair, high value return. That's specifically the question I asked. And yes I have been setting you up for this the whole time.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) I don't disagree with any of this. Your assessment of my knowledge on Castellanos is correct. But, I'm taking it one step further by observing precedent to form my opinion since I have no access to ML front offices. I believe Castellanos' value is high because I have observed that the value of top 30 hitting prospects that are in AAA and major league ready is higher than that of a half decent closer with less team control remaining. It is certainly possible that the Tigers think he's overrated and the White Sox don't, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is the case. However, there's tons of evidence (from past trades over the past 5-10 years) that suggests that guys like Castellanos (or guys described like Castellanos by the media the I read) are worth much more. Therefore, I think there is no chance for this trade. ESPECIALLY given that there is no reason for the Tigers to be so desperate, what with so many other options available. I agree he has a high amount of value. There is also a precedent of MLB teams drafting players well higher or than what is out there in print; there's a precedent of mainstream writers heavily underrating and overrating prospects while MLB FO react very differently (nobody biting on Olt over the offseason on a big deal as one example, then his numbers falling off in Triple A this year) etc. Let's just call a truce on this, and I will ask you the same basic question as above, being that if the Sox get offered a player they like as much as you like Castellanos, do you make that deal? Because I believe that Reed's value is also very high, and that it's higher mid-season, that it's likely higher now than it ever will be because he's farther from arbitration now than he will be tomorrow, and that his value is higher to a team in desperate need of a closer, and further, that in the right situation (Illitch for example acting as a GM) Addison can bring back a player who has the potential to be far more valuable than he is worth to us. We've been fighting like dogs all day, rolling around in the muck, scratching & biting, you've sniffed a couple of places you shouldn't have but if that's a dominance thing I understand, but I offer this truce because I'm ready to move on assuming you say you would 1) put Addison out there on the block IF you can bring back what you would consider a Castellanos return, and that 2) you would make that deal.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:27 PM) I honestly think Castellanos is perfect value for Reed, though in a vacuum I would try to acquire another low level prospect as well. The problem is that I don't think the Tigers need a young, stud closer in Reed so badly that they feel the need to trade away their best prospect and arguably a top 20 prospect in the game to a rival. I mean, this seems like you are going to an extreme in petitioning and debating the merits of this deal when, really, there's probably a 1 in 1,000,000 chance this deal comes to fruition. So then, if the Sox find a team who offers them a prospect/young player who they like just as much as you like Castellanos, someone also with a high ceiling who ialso s pretty close, should they trade Reed in that deal?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) That is pretty close to the sound that I make, lol. What I missed is this: why would the Tigers trade Castellanos for Reed when Papelbon, Crain, and Cishek are all available for substantially less talent? All three are better than Reed right now, also. I just read that the Phillies don't even want to trade Papelbon because they don't feel his deal is a problem. Crain isn't a closer, that's just another experiment. How do you know what other teams are asking? You don't. You have no idea. The Marlins need talent too, they're done giving players away. They have practically nothing on the books anymore. Who is to say they wouldn't ask even more than the Sox? They're all better than Reed? Throwing s*** at the wall here? You're asking me why the Tigers would try to get a good closer from someone in exchange for a prospect. I've answered that already. You just keep asking the same question.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) Answer #1: I did not put those words in your mouth. This is what I'm trying to say, spelled out as clearly as possible: - MLBTR says the Tigers are willing to give up Cast/Garcia for a closer IF NECESSARY - You suggest there is a real possibility that the Tigers would want to trade one of those for Reed, becuase he is, in fact, a closer - I say that they would never do that, because that would be an overpay, and there exist several cheaper options on the market, such as Jesse Crain or Jonathan Papelbon, the latter with which they have actually been connected by at least one reporter - Further, such intradivisional swaps of controllable talent are extremely uncommon, perhaps virtually unprecedented, because of the long-term risk each team takes by given their closest rivals weapons that may haunt them for years to come. Whether you think this is dumb or not, it is fact. If you were to not agree with me, I would expect you would do so by making an argument that overpaying for Reed somehow makes more sense than the cheaper alternatives that are currently better pitchers in the short term. To clarify further, I would LOVE to trade Reed for Castellanos, because we would clearly win that trade. However, there's no chance of it happening so long as Dombrowski is still mentally fit for his job. Answer #2: All the words. Let's just tackle the most glaring issue here: your view of Castellanos as a prospect & your idea of his value. What is this based on? Are you a professional scout? Do you have any real reason, aside from a few snippets of scouting video you may have seen, or the "general consensus" among baseball writers, which you have read, and which almost always are a composite of several different opinions over different periods of time, to personally believe that Nick Castellanos should be viewed as a player who is so valuable, and enough of a sure thing, that he should even be viewed as equal to Addison Reed, who is a proven MLB closer? Just an equal now? Because personally all I see is another highly rated prospect who is going to have to come to the big leagues and prove his worth. Unless you have some incredible scouting knowledge which I do not have, and which I doubt anyone here has, you really have no reason to believe that a Reed for Castellanos deal benefits ANYONE at the moment other than the Tigers, because they are getting a proven player. Every single year around the deadline it is the same general conversation. OMG this prospect is so great, yadda yadda yadda, and most of them fall off. It's always risky trading for them, but unfortunately the Sox are so bad right now that they pretty much have to. Unless you have a crystal ball or a really good deck of magical talking tarot cards, you DO NOT have any clue what kind of contributions Nick Castellanos is ever going to make at the MLB level. ----- And as for the rest of your post, it all relates to your own personal reasoning for believing Castellanos is so special. You're saying Castellanos is overpaying? What are you basing that on? If Castellanos is out there on the block for a closer - and there is a report that he is, for the right deal if necessary - then our people are going to have their own very real opinions on his abilities as a player & the likelihood of his success at the MLB level. And none of those opinions are going to come from someone else's blog either. If the Sox believe that one of the Tigers prospects out there may be available, and this player might be a real difference maker, then they should take a shot. Because they have to take risks, because they need the talent, because they don't have the farm system, because they don't have many valuable pieces to trade, and because a starting pitcher or a starting position player who is very good is worth more than a closer. Lastly, no matter where you get your information, absolutely NO ONE knows more about Nick Castellanos than the people in the Tigers organization, period. ***IF*** the Tigers people are making him available AT ALL, then it means that they themselves have questions. Why do they have those questions?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) I was implying that the statement you made is in stark contrast with what you're saying elsewhere. But maybe I CAN'T read. That would make sense, because it would explain why you seem to be contradicting yourself so much. It could my poor comprehension. I think you're angry, blind with anger, and when you see my posts you go AAAAAHAHAHHARGHGHGRHGAAA and the fingers start flying and it's like AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH and then I come back and I'm just like I don't get it, I already responded to that point on the last page.

At what point did I ever dispute that the Tigers were thinking about Papelbon? And at what point do you read the responses of the people you are arguing with before continuing the conversation?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) And this is all still assuming the Tigers would want to trade Castellanos or (ugh) Garcia to the Sox to begin with. They may very well not feel apt to do such a thing and get their asses kicked by said player for the next 6 years. We should put a deal out there that our scouts & FO would love. If the Tigers bite, yippie! Although if we get back a prospect or several of them, and they bust, we could get hurt. Not a sure thing we'd come out ahead there. But if the Tigers say "thanks but no thanks, too risky for us" then at least we tried. And we should try. There are a lot of signs out there that they'd make another big move, and if they do it's almost certainly going to involve a closer. And I agree with the Jerkmeister, I doubt they're salivating over the idea of Kevin Gregg. Ooooooh, Kevin Gregggg yeeeeeeeah. Maybe he's depth, if anything.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 12:45 PM) Then he can be happy paying Papelbon $13 million a year for the next 2 years and trying to figure out how to have his option year not kick in. At some point they will care about how much money they are losing and that will be good for us. Miguel Cabrera's contract comes up for renewal right in the middle of that. Yeah, Papelbon is how much better than Reed on paper? And how much more expensive? I bet if they had Casper Wells as a prospect now Eminor3D would be like "You can't get Casper Wells he's so good erereerer" when in fact he is a perfect example of WHY a team - any team - would prefer to take a potential risk on an unproven player's future rather than a very certain guaranteed contractual obligation. The Tigers seem to have dealt many of their best prospects in recent years. OMG Jacob Turner, OMG Cameron Maybin, Jair Jurrjens, Gorkys, Miller, etc. Jerksticks & others in this thread, wite included re: disliking Garcia, have very points about the risk of trading a proven young player for someone who hasn't done anything yet at the MLB level. My whole point is that you can't acquire the amount of talent you need without taking risks, and risking a young closer in hopes of a big return is the type of risk you should be prepared to take if you are Hahn. Sale OTOH is not a risk you should be prepared to take.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) Then he gets Papelbon and pays money to give up less talent. They aren't trading Castellanos for Reed. It's a stupid decision and there are better options, even if they are going to be reckless as you assume. Castellanos for Reed wouldn't even hold up in an ESPN discussion, there's just no argument for it. Jimminy Christmas CAN YOU READ? http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/detroit_tigers/index.html Other teams say the Tigers are willing to surrender top prospects Nick Castellanos or Avisail Garcia if necessary. The team is focused on finding a closer.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) What like "Castellanos for Reed" out of hand? I'm starting to think that 'The Ultimate Champion' actually a small team of posters acting independently. Can you read?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:35 AM) Man you really think opposing GM's are idiots. They're going to haggle whenever things get serious, but both sides know the general level of value & they're not going to get so far out of hand as to create a bad relationship. I highly doubt any contender wants to sour things with a FO that looks like it will spend at least part of the next 2 seasons acting as a seller.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) While he is a fit, i am wary of Yankee prospects They signed Brennan Boesch after the Tigers let him go. IIRC he was doing decently, maybe straight-up that's a fair deal. You plug him in, if he sucks, see-ya (Yankees douche HR voice).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 11:27 AM) I can't stand Avisail Garcia. He is a slap hitting, non-disciplined, not-as-athletically gifted as many believe prospect. He doesn't take walks, he strikes out at a decent clip, doesn't hit for a lot of power, and doesn't run a whole lot. He's probably, in a very good year, a 3.5-4.0 player, and normally a 2.0 player. I don't trade my player (regardless of his position or title), who is already a 2.0 WAR type player and under team control for 4 more years, straight up for someone like that. I have no problem with him as the centerpiece of a deal, but you need more for him. I may overvalue Addison Reed, but you are quite evidently undervaluing him and what a good reliever can actually bring to a bullpen and a team, and you are doing so by a lot. Yeah okay wahtever, I like him you don't. We don't matter, our scouts do. If they think he's a potential difference maker & the deal is out there then they should do it. If they don't and the deal is out there then they shouldn't.

I believe you can bowl the Tigers over. You can't give them a deal on paper that is equal roughly with another team in another league & expect them to do a deal within the division. But if you give them Reed, Crain + Thornton and take back Coke, Alburquerque who are struggling & ask they pay the difference in top prospects, you're potentially bowling them over. Reed alone should be worth a very nice prospect or high quality young MLBer. Crain's value (let's not get carried away) should be a pretty decent prospect further away, but nothing extraordinary. Thornton's value should be a little lesser than that mainly because he's left-handed. Offer them that deal & you potentially offer to clear their way to a championship. Huge risk on both sides. But Illitch is ready to be ballsy & if he's game we should be ballsy too.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) I agree, but they tend to happen less in baseball and usually not on this scale. Usually it is something a 3 month rental for a low level prospect (Liriano for Escobar), not really multi-year impact players changing hands. If its the only deal they can get, I am sure they probably will consider it pretty hard, but if they can make a deal elsewhere that will be good enough, they will take that over the any deal from the White Sox. On July 20th Mike Illitch will turn 84. Question, do you think he gives one single s*** about what some unproven minor league is going to do 2-3 years from now? Obviously he doesn't want to set his organization back, but he wants a ring & he can't just wait around forever.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:32 AM) Oh, and those saying they're OK with Garcia for Reed, GTFO. At least when Joe Crede came up and the Sox thought they ahd their 3Bman of the future, he had put up great minor league numbers and won MVPs in the leagues he came up in. Avisail Garcia doesn't walk and hits for mediocre power. It's like Carlos Gomez, except without the speed, which might be nice in like 2017 or so, but not right now or the near future. Me. And he's clearly a finished product, isn't he wite? If our scouts like him then you do the deal if it is out there.

You trade Paulie to any contender he wishes if he wants another shot at a ring, and you don't get too greedy to the point of holding a deal up. You request something small & fair, but if you have to deal him off for a nonprospect you do it anyway. But if Paulie would rather stay then you don't put him out there in July, and you ask him again toward the middle of August after he's hit the waiver wire.

In that gif Reed is watching the ball like Pedro Cerrano, oh beautiful ball in blue sky it's like snowflake, etc. More like Ghostbusters 2 though, they kill that giant marshmalllow man but oh wait here comes Andy Gonzalez again right out the painting, controlling all the sludge under the city. There's just no reason for that play to happen. You're not a CF, it's not the OF. Why does the 2B feel he needs to cross the mound on an easy popup without even looking to see where the 3B is?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 06:48 AM) It is the pitcher's job to direct traffic. The pitcher is supposed to be yelling "Conor", "Gillaspie" or "3rd base" loud enough for the rest of the infielders to hear him and then get the f*** out of the way. I can't tell if Reed just failed to do that, or if Beckham just ignored him. Addison was a spectator but there's no reason for Andy Gonzalez to be anywhere near that ball. Flowers wasn't coming in on it, he backed away, you're not supposed to turn completely around & make sure the LF, 1B, batboy, etc, are trying to get themselves involved. That's all on 2B right there. That was the complete opposite of a webgem. Don't know what you call it though.