TheFutureIsNear

Hell no to Cargo...and anybody on the Rockies really. I don't see any good fits for us unless it involves us getting Tulo...which isn't happening. Reds make a lot more sense to me though. Bruce and Leake for.....? I have no idea but those 2 certainly make a lot of sense for both sides. Leake is a FA, but could possibly be resigned for a reasonable price

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 08:59 PM) Maybe he will be included if we trade for Shark. I don't know enough to predict trades but as long as it's nothing to serious I'd be ok with it. But previously stated I like the player (Shark) not the price it'll cost. I really don't think the Shark deal is happening. I don't think we are going to commit close to $100 million to him and a 1 year rental makes no sense at all. Reddick, on the other hand, is a fairly young LH OF who will be reasonably priced for 2 years and shouldn't cost too much to acquire either. If he can stay healthy he'd hit 30 hrs while playing very good D. That's 4 WAR minimum

I'd love to se us get Reddick from the A's. Beane pretty much has no choice but to move a LH OF'er and Reddick recently questioned the Donaldson trade publicly so I can see something happening soon. I wonder if Semien + a pitching prospect not named Rodon, Adams, Montas or Danish would get it done?

I think this trade comes down to what's better....Shark and Lowrie/Cabrera/Drew or Alexei and Masterson/Hammel/McCarthy. The 2nd option is considerably more expensive but would be controlled for longer. I really don't think Beane is looking for prospects only in Shark trade.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 10:26 PM) That Donaldson move is a head-scratcher. From what I'm reading Barreto is a very nice prospect....only 18 and hit very well in low A already. Donaldson is super 2 eligible and will start to get expensive after this year so I can kinda see why they would look to move him. Though his contract is still very reasonable so I probably would have let him play out another year to see if he can come closer to his 2013 #'s to maximize his value.

Welp Donaldson gone for Brett Lawrie and others.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) I think you guys are both wrong. - Having a -0.7 UZR is the same thing as having a zero UZR, which means average, which MIGHT be your definition of "mediocre," but is really just that it doesn't hurt you or help you. - The public, for some reason, tends to act as if defense is a remarkably consistent skill where guys are constantly playing at their exact true talents, whereas everyone accepts that offense is streaky. There is no evidence, however, to suggest this is the case. - The public assumes that UZR/DRS are inaccurate without multi-year samples, when the truth is that they are just not PREDICTIVE without multi-year samples, which is very different. That Alexei had a "mediocre" season defensively does not make him a true-talent "mediocre" defender, just as the fact that he was previously elite does not mean that he is currently elite. Probably his age has slowed him a bit, but probably it did not turn him from high-end to below average in the span of one season. He is most likely a tick above average and just didn't have a great season. Both the eyeball test AND the sabermetrics point to this conclusion. Of course it's his age. Just 3 or 4 years ago Alexei was a borderline elite SS....me or anyone else shouldn't be denying that. But as all athletes who get into their 30's he's declining. His RZR (revised zone rating) is pretty damming of this. He went from exceptional in 2012 (.837) to pretty poor (.730) this past year. Maybe it was an anomaly, but betting on a soon to be 34 year old SS to turn his D around is a pretty poor bet in my opinion.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 04:55 PM) then why is there alot of emphasis placed on the GG award? By who? It's common knowledge the award is a joke. Derek Jeter won 5 at the same position.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 04:15 PM) you were laughing at anyone who said that he was up for the award. the proof is there. if you have a problem with it, take up with the committee for that award. No, as I already said I was laughing at anyone who thinks being a finalist for the GG means anything.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) Or there are flaws in the statistics. So they were flawed 3 or 4 years when they were in Alexei's favor too right? Or just when you choose to disagree with them?

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 01:04 PM) He was a finalist for an Gold Glove just a few weeks ago... It's not a joke. I know that. I'm laughing at the actual award and being nominated for it meaning anything what so ever. The fielding bible gave Alexei a -10 in +/- runs saved on the year. His UZR was -.7. His zone rating was in the low .700's....seriously, this isn't debatable. He's AT BEST a mediocre fielder.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) How is he a mediocre fielder? He was nominated for a gold glove, I think he's above average to say the least. And he just won a Silver Slugger award at SS in the AL. He doesn't have a high OPS because he doesn't walk a bunch, but he hits for a high average and can still steal bases. I think your value of Alexei is incredibly pessimistic. Lol nominated for a good glove. Good joke man, I laughed pretty hard. You might want to check these crazy things called stats. They don't lie and they don't paint a very nice picture for Alexei's D.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 02:58 AM) It's much easier to replace a LF spot than a SS spot. SS is the most important position on the field and the hardest to replace and find good talent for. LF is one of the easiest positions to replace. It's like trading your QB to acquire a good FB. When that SS is old, a mediocre fielder, and not a + bat that analogy doesn't even come close to working. This board's value of Alexei is incredibly overblown. If (even though it probably won't happen) they trade Alexei this board is going to erupt with disappointment with the return.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) I think the point is we continue to play hardball and see if the Dodgers ultimately end up biting. Hahn can continue to be out in the media talking through our plans to make big moves, etc. The reality is trading Alexei for Pederson or Seager would be a good deal for the Sox and given the Dodgers situation, you could justify the move on their end. If we move Alexei, it should be for a potential difference maker. Pederson is ready to play in the majors. Is he ready to be a star in year one, no, but you can't have that expectation out of any rookie. Nope, I'd be absolutely infuriated if I was a Dodgers fan. Freidman isn't going to make that move either....just not going to happen.

QUOTE (AlSoxfan @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 11:14 AM) Whatever happened to Allen Craig? He had a pretty good season in 13 an then fell down in 14. Is he someone we might be interested in on the cheap? He's had a bad lisfranc injury since late 2013. One of those injuries that just won't heal right for him. Last I heard he was debating surgery, not sure if he ever got it done or not. I doubt they can trade him though. They took the risk and will probably ride it out.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) Bradley Jr is an incredibly talented player. He'd be a great piece to acquire because that talent should help him to be a very good 4th outfielder at the very, very least with a 4-5 WAR potential in CF at his very best. I assume Bradley Jr still has options left? If so it's going to give Boston a good reason to not trade him unless we actually give them something they can use. If we didn't have Eaton I'd be all for taking a risk on Bradley to hope his bat can become passable, but I don't see the need for the risk at this point. If we are going to use resources to trade for a LF it better be someone with a track record.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) $13M salary is a huge cost. $13M for 1 year is not a lot for a starting OF. Like I said, he would be a fall back option in a couple months if the LF hole isn't filled and the $ isn't spent. Would you rather take a shot on Victorino for 1 year $13 at the cost of Chris Beck or sign Melky Cabrera for 4 years and $16M per at the cost of a 2nd rounder?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 03:13 AM) Bradley Jr. over Victorino any day. Old broken down OF's are a step in the wrong direction. At least Bradley, Jr. has youth , wonderful D which the Sox need badly and speed and the "potential " to hit. Still rather try to pry Holt loose. Maybe he'd cost less than JBJ despite having great value to the Red Sox as a super-utility guy. On that team he will get nowhere near the amount of AB's he had last year. Maybe in a humanitarian gesture the Red Sox let him go to realize his potential rather than keep him as the supersub. Bradley Jr can't hit and would cost us something decent...getting a guy like Victorino isn't a move to make any time soon because you'd obviously like a more long term option, but he's certainly not a bad stop gap option if other plans fall through. I mean we did just sign a 34 year old DH to a 2 year deal...Victorino for 1 year can't seem like too bad of an idea, especially if he costs us little to nothing in a trade.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand. Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000. Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway. You're lottery analogy is WAY overstating how difficult it is to analyze prospects in today's day and age. Every prospect that has been mentioned in this thread is in their early 20's with sustained success in the high levels of the minors. If we were to get 6 prospects back are they all going to reach their potential? Of course not, that would be naive to think so. But you're lottery analogy is also extreme in the opposite direction. Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen? To me they(above posters) are way more worried about intangible things like "value" of a contract rather than the actual tangible things like talent on the field. But you're card analogy works as well.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:05 PM) Ok so our current situations is this: we have a handful of star-level players who are controllable and cheap. We can either (a) get rid of them for different players who are controllable and cheap and hopefully will reach star-level or (b) leverage the advantage that those players give us and actually try to win a World Series. If your goal is to win a WS, option B is the only option. Option A is a perpetual cycle of "maybe next year." My point is NOT that you can win by ONLY acquiring assets with surplus value. That's impossible. My point IS that trading Sale or Quintana at this point is a characteristic of option A. There is a point where Sale and Quintana should be traded. That point is somewhere around 2018 in the instance that those players may no longer fit into the plan for the next five years because they are older/less effective/no longer in possession of several years of below-market control. We are ONE year into this current cycle of Hahn building a perpetual winner. We must stay the course. There is no realistic package that we can get for Chris Sale that will bring us closer to the WS than keeping Chris Sale, and we have not given this core a chance to win. It is not time to tear it down. My summary of your post after reading it...This is my opinion. It's fact. Deal with it. Its not the same scenario, but the Cardinals let arguably the best hitter of the generation walk for nothing and have continued to have success since. Its perfect proof that there is no 1 player that is more valuable than good organizational depth. The Cardinals realized they could replace Pujols with 3-4 players at the same $ amount and actually be better off. If you wouldn't trade 1 SP for 3 everyday regular players + 2 very good young arms you're crazy. All there is to it. If you were arguing that you didn't like certain things about the individual prospects it would be 1 thing, but the idea that there is no package that could replace Chris Sale's value is ludicrous at best.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Because using the literal definition of Chris Sale's job acts as if he's some average, run of the mill pitcher. He's not. He's arguably the most valuable pitcher in the league. It's like saying "all Jose Abreu does is go up there for 550 at bats, you can find all kinds of guys who can do that." That's obviously ludicrous. The teams who make the trades for those elite players are the teams who win. The only one I can think that really worked for the trading team was the Bedard trade, and I don't think he was elite and I think the Mariners cashed in their chips too early for a guy who was not a guarantee. Lol trying to have a conversation with you is like banging my head against a wall. I'm over this. Sale isn't getting traded and it's not worth my effort trying to engage in a logical discussion with you.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) How are you taking yourself seriously right now? Chris Sale is arguably the best pitcher in the American League and you've reduced him to "1 player who pitches every fifth day." This isn't Hector Noesi we're talking about, and yes, trading Chris Sale right now means the White Sox are punting the next 3 years. You never say anyone's untouchable, but that's only if someone wanted to give you an irrationally good deal. The Sox aren't going to be trading Chris Sale. Because that's literally what he does lol...Please explain to me how he is not 1 player that pitches every 5th day? All I'm saying is that a starting C, SS, LF, a #3, and a #4 is > than 1 #1 SP. If you disagree that's fine, but it's my opinion. I'm clearly more of a gambling man myself and I also happen to really like Swihart, Bogarts, Betts, Ranaudo and Owens as prospects. To me its worth the risk and it could easily pay off huge as soon as 2016. but like I've said a bunch already, its never going to happen and its just a fun discussion. So everyone can get their panties out of a bunch about it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) You should want minimum 2 players that have had sustained success in the majors. And thats just the start. You are punting at least the next 3 years making this deal. Yeah because obviously trading 1 player who pitches every fifth day means we are punting for the next 3 years. Makes perfect sense.

Ok, ok I forgot the Red Sox won the world series. Still an example of trading an ace pitcher for a good return. If the Marlins weren't the Marlins Hanley and Sanchez should have been much better for their long term success than Beckett and Lowell. Obviously all prospects are risks, but Owens, Bogarts, Swihart, Betts, and Ranaudo would have a really good chance of starting for us in 2016. Of course that's in a prefect world where they all succeed, but still a risk worth at least entertaining in my opinion. Not like they are 18 year olds, they have all had success in the upper minors with a good bit of pedigree behind them.