Jose Abreu

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 12, 2017 -> 12:14 PM) Who would have given us that package though? Looking back, the top farm systems at the end of 2014 were the Cubs, Twins, Astros, Red Sox, Rangers, Pirates and Dodgers. A pre-title Cubs would not be a trade partner, the Twins aren't happening, and I don't think the Pirates pull the trigger either on a Glasnow (#12)/Meadows (#30) led package. If they wouldn't this past offseason I don't think they do it in 2015 either. The Dodgers with Kershaw and Greinke are not going to be willing to part with some combination of Urias (#3)/Seager (#6)/Pederson (#11). The Red Sox were clearly intending to compete with the signings of Sandoval and Ramirez, but going by Fangraphs rankings of prospects in February 2015, their top prospects at the time were Swihart (#9), Rodriguez (#23), Owens (#33), Margot (#35) and Devers (#48). Even if we somehow got Devers as the third piece instead of the next prospect (Brian Williams at #104), is Swihart/one of Rodriguez or Owens/Devers better than what we got? Rangers had Gallo (#16), Alex Gonzalez (#27), Jake Thompson (#29), Mazara (#46), and Alfaro (#53). Would Gallo/one of Gonzalez or Thompson/one of Mazara and Alfaro be better? And that's probably unrealistic. Unless the Astros were willing to give up Correa (#5) they wouldn't beat what we got, and Appel (#18) would have been the second piece. Coming off a 92 loss season there's no way they do it. The only other team I could see being in the picture is Toronto with Norris (#17), Hoffman (#67), Sanchez (#70), Pompey (#80) and Pentecost (#93) but we'd want at least two top 50 guys and they didn't have the elite positional prospect we'd want. I'm not seeing a realistic package that would be better than what we got. Trading Sale at that time would've been a bad idea for many reasons, so I guess this is just another one. I maintain that his trade value would've been higher, but I suppose he may not have fetched a better package regardless.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 12, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) I disagree. 2 extra years of Sale proving his dominance/health isn't worth much less than 2 years of control. The Sale trade that actually went down doesn't happen that much cause teams are not gutting entire systems for 1 single player. I don't think he had anything to prove. By the start of 2015, he was the same caliber of pitcher he was when we traded him, with the same relatively clean bill of health.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Sep 12, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) Also what's the point of having the home opener on a Thursday and giving Friday off? seems real odd. They do that every year in case the first day gets rained out

QUOTE (Quin @ Sep 12, 2017 -> 12:11 AM) It's kind of hard to top the #1 hitting and #1 pitching prospect. Unless you're saying the Basabe / Diaz components would be better That is what I'm saying. Had this trade occurred with 2 extra years of a cheap Chris Sale, the 3rd piece would've been much better IMO. Another top 100 guy.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 11, 2017 -> 04:23 PM) Returns for Sale, Q, & Eaton wouldn't have been as high I'd argue that the return for Sale would've been much higher

What a string of games he's having. Truly remarkable hitting. I was hoping he'd make it to 100 RBIs, now I'd be surprised if he doesn't get to his career high (107) at this rate

abreu

delmonico

Even Abreu's defense has improved throughout the year

anderson

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Sep 10, 2017 -> 03:48 PM) With the amount of talent expected in the '18 draft, I'll take a top three no problem. Making the right choice draft night is what really matters. Yup- given that there's no clear cut #1 or #2, it's not that big of a deal.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 11:26 PM) You're telling me about sample size when you listed his last 16 games. My limited sample size is bigger than yours . I'm in no way implying Devers is or will be better than Moncada just don't like the lucky schtik, You have more chances to get lucky when you at least put the ball in play . I hate evaluating players with less than a few full seasons like this because no matter which range you use for their stats (even if that range is every MLB PA), the sample size will be small and likely insignificant. I get it though- he has looked good overall but I still think he's due for more regression.

Didn't watch tonight, but I feel like he gets pulled late in games with some regularity now. I assumed it was just for rest purposes, but I trust ptatc's judgement

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 10:14 PM) So now he's only hitting .300 . That's a pretty good mean. An unsustainable, lucky .300 with limited sample size

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 08:53 AM) True but it's about more than the pitchers. Shields pitching against that Giant lineup has disaster written all over it. Especially if the fielding miscues continue. Not trying to be doom and gloom, just realistic. Yeah we both took a loss on that one

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) I haven't seen one poster who has said Moncada is doomed, merely that there's concern. You guys are also conflating things. Yes "x type of players have had big slumps", but it can also be true that "x types of slumps are more correlated with hitters who end up struggling". They're obviously not mutually exclusive. You're right, but 19 ABs isn't a big enough sample size to be a slump, if that's what you're implying

A Garcia

Delmonico

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 12:17 PM) What DL stints they have those years? Jones was injury-free those years, but Petricka had 1 DL stint and Putnam had 2 (1 in each year) over those spans.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 12:04 PM) You can either think that very small sample size gives you no signal, or SOME signal (however small it may be). Heaven forbid I think it was slightly telling. It's possible to like a player, want them to succeed, and still be concerned. Nobody knows how this kid's career will unfold. It was 19 ABs for a kid who wasn't even MLB ready, and everybody knew it. There are so many 19 AB sample sizes where all-stars hit .000/.100/.000 or bad hitters hit .474/.524/.788. At the end of the day, those 19 ABs will be something like 2 tenths of a percentage point of his career.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 11:14 AM) I am worried. I don't think he's a .180 hitter, but he might not be better than a .240 hitter with lots of walks. We were warned based on his cup of coffee last year with Boston. My god

QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 01:24 AM) He'll be better than Tim Anderson at the plate at a bare minimum. He's not this bad. Although Devers is looking like he would've been the best get like I originally thought. Devers has been horrible lately Edit- .197/.258 with a .487 OPS in his last 16 games. Regression to the mean.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2017 -> 09:00 AM) Petricka had 67 and 62 appearances in '14 and '15, Putnam had 49 each in back to back seasons. Jones is even a stretch at 65 and 70. Jones wasn't a top 10 usage pitcher in either year.... let alone Petricka and Putnam.. To be fair, they would've had more without their in-season DL stints

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Sep 8, 2017 -> 01:52 PM) I think tonight's game is the Sox best chance for a win and I'm not all that confident in this offense against Moore. Despite shark bait pitching Saturday, he's still opposed by James f***ing Shields, ugh. Sunday is Bumgarner, LMAO. Definitely potential or a sweep if the Sox don't put up some offense this weekend. Shields vs. Samardzija? They're practically the same pitcher*... give me a 7-6 SF win *before someone brings in stats, I just mean they're inning eating RHPs who get lit up

It was a good run for Delpo