4 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

No reason for this to be a serious question.

If it's Springer, I'm not really keen on that idea. I may be in the minority, but the cheating and the other options available makes it a bad idea. Too much uncertainty for a $25+ million AAV long term deal IMO.

4 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

If it's Springer, I'm not really keen on that idea. I may be in the minority, but the cheating and the other options available makes it a bad idea. Too much uncertainty for a $25+ million AAV long term deal IMO.

Springer, Brantley, Ozuna for starters. Sorry you're not keen on an idea most of this board is behind. We're past the "cheating" part of this and I really don't want to have to go over the obvious reasons you should be overlooking that AGAIN because it's been done to death but either way for you to act like there aren't any options is ignorant. There are some really prime RF options available this offseason. Joc would be a mere consolation prize.

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by RagahRagah

Brantley and Ozuna are poor defenders who belong in LF, not RF.

Brantley has over 1100 games played in the majors and only 8 starts in RF. He is not a RF.

Springer is the only RF obviously better than Pederson, but Jackie Bradley Jr is at least on the same tier, but a worse fit on this roster in my opinion.

MLB trade values as always has some really shitty and stupid ratings for players, e.g. Garrett Crochet and Luis Gonzalez having equal trade value.  Crochet is a centerpiece or #2 in a huge deal and Gonzalez is like the 3rd piece in mediocre deal or the centerpiece in a deal for a MR.  

I would do a deal for Musgrove with Dunning as a centerpiece and Collins as the #2, and maybe a couple other interesting pieces after, but nothing huge.  I think Musgrove would be a good pickup but I wouldn't give up a top SP arm for him.  I'd try to do a little background on him first and would be willing to pay more if we could extend him after the deal and keep him from hitting FA and getting FA market value. 

Snell would of course be awesome.  They could have Cease at the front in that with some good pieces behind it.  But if that's not enough then I am fine holding my cards and letting these guys develop a bit.  We have excellent ceiling in the SP category and any of these guys who actually develop will be worth a fuckton in trade value.

9 minutes ago, TomPickle said:

Brantley has over 1100 games played in the majors and only 8 starts in RF. He is not a RF.

Springer is the only RF obviously better than Pederson, but Jackie Bradley Jr is at least on the same tier, but a worse fit on this roster in my opinion.

Also people gotta recognize that Engel is actually a worthy LHP hitting platoon partner at this point

If the new pitching coach is anywhere near as good as reflected in Giolito's improvement, then we would seem to have the interesting fallback option of just keeping what we have and hope to find some more gold. With Cease, Dunning, Lopez, Kopech, Lambert, Stiever and even Crochet, it's not like there is no potential there. I would prefer at least a solid #3, but that will depend on either cost or what we would have to give up.

22 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

Springer, Brantley, Ozuna for starters. Sorry you're not keen on an idea most of this board is behind. We're past the "cheating" part of this and I really don't want to have to go over the obvious reasons you should be overlooking that AGAIN because it's been done to death but either way for you to act like there aren't any options is ignorant. There are some really prime RF options available this offseason. Joc would be a mere consolation prize.

"Not a butcher defensively" eliminates Brantley and Ozuna. Springer is a huge risk IMO. You don't have to agree with me on that. This is about opinion. My opinion is that Pederson is the best fit for this team for the reasons I've stated.

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

Also people gotta recognize that Engel is actually a worthy LHP hitting platoon partner at this point

This is one of the reasons I want Pederson. Also gives the Sox flexibility at DH with the ability to rotate their OFs in and out of the spot.

Also, random and somewhat off topic, but every year someone does a spreadsheet as an offseason simulator type of thing. Where can I find that?

Just now, Dam8610 said:

Also, random and somewhat off topic, but every year someone does a spreadsheet as an offseason simulator type of thing. Where can I find that?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S_GkRq9r-NZaYnyAKsUfEFEg0Lm3BGzF1B5qUVxa-iY/edit

You just need to copy a version in your own drive. I was doing some weird team building themes so ignore the players already selected.

15 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

"Not a butcher defensively" eliminates Brantley and Ozuna. Springer is a huge risk IMO. You don't have to agree with me on that. This is about opinion. My opinion is that Pederson is the best fit for this team for the reasons I've stated.

This is one of the reasons I want Pederson. Also gives the Sox flexibility at DH with the ability to rotate their OFs in and out of the spot.

I have never understood the mentality that Ozuna is a "butcher." On top of that, the offensive production we would get from those guys would be well worth it. I think if you look at the season Ozuna just had and don't want that guy on your team you are over analyzing just a tad.

Why is Springer a risk?

1 hour ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

The rankings you gave were also incorrect. The prospect rank you gave for Dylan Cease was fake news

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017/

That website is fake news? I guess under the “I don’t agree with it therefore it is fake news” standard. Who ever heard of...MLB.com? 

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017/

That website is fake news? I guess under the “I don’t agree with it therefore it is fake news” standard. Who ever heard of...MLB.com? 

You said Cease was top 50. That article clearly has him at 58. Your statement that he was top 50 is fake news. 

19 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

I have never understood the mentality that Ozuna is a "butcher." On top of that, the offensive production we would get from those guys would be well worth it. I think if you look at the season Ozuna just had and don't want that guy on your team you are over analyzing just a tad.

Why is Springer a risk?

One thing worth noting on Springer is that he did have a DL stint in each year 2017-2019, including missing 40 games with a hamstring injury in 2019. 

34 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

I have never understood the mentality that Ozuna is a "butcher." On top of that, the offensive production we would get from those guys would be well worth it. I think if you look at the season Ozuna just had and don't want that guy on your team you are over analyzing just a tad.

Why is Springer a risk?

I'd love Ozuna as a DH if Vaughn didn't exist. But putting two butchers in the corners around Robert is begging to get Robert injured, hurt the pitching staff, and cost the team games.

Springer is a risk because he could be a 3-4 WAR player without the bangs (not to mention he had a down season or two with the Astros), for which a long term $25+ million AAV deal is an overpay.

Just now, Dam8610 said:

I'd love Ozuna as a DH if Vaughn didn't exist. But putting two butchers in the corners around Robert is begging to get Robert injured, hurt the pitching staff, and cost the team games.

Springer is a risk because he could be a 3-4 WAR player without the bangs (not to mention he had a down season or two with the Astros), for which a long term $25+ million AAV deal is an overpay.

Again, not sure why so much hyperbole with Ozuna's defense lately.

Also, virtually all contracts are an overpay these days. I'd rather overpay for a really solid OF than pay peanuts for a bad/mediocre one. That's the way this team has operated for years and it really needs to change.

32 minutes ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

You said Cease was top 50. That article clearly has him at 58. Your statement that he was top 50 is fake news. 

Why are you the way that you are?

2 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

 don't get discouraged that people argue with you using their own value.  I suppose that 's how 2 GM's go at it when discussing a trade.

I don't mind people using their own value...would prefer they didn't disparage the use of objective data, such as MLB Trade Values, when it doesn't support their own values. 

8 minutes ago, Flash said:

I don't mind people using their own value...would prefer they didn't disparage the use of objective data, such as MLB Trade Values, when it doesn't support their own values. 

Again, what objective value did Balta provide that was ignored?

I didn't react to his trade proposition or his rationale...I reacted to his comment which implied he had provided objective data that was ignored. 

14 minutes ago, Flash said:

I didn't react to his trade proposition or his rationale...I reacted to his comment which implied he had provided objective data that was ignored. 

But that’s what I’m asking, what objective data was ignored?  He literally claimed a guy who is universally considered a top 50 prospect by all major publications isn’t a top 50 prospect because “Soxtalk wants to get rid of him”.

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

But that’s what I’m asking, what objective data was ignored?  He literally claimed a guy who is universally considered a top 50 prospect by all major publications isn’t a top 50 prospect because “Soxtalk wants to get rid of him”.

Does Cease still qualify for any prospect lists or are we still basing that on the preseason rankings? 

Anyway, I'll back off a little bit and offer a more detailed comparison. Looking back at the thread for the Q/Cease/Eloy deal thread, generally everyone considered Cease to fall in the 50-65 range, so yeah not top 50, knocking on the door of that but yes, not top 50. But, Eloy was considered consensus #5 at the time. So...I will stand with "Vaughn + Kopech" as the comp for "Eloy + Cease". Top 15 guy + Kopech (doesn't qualify, lost a year+ of control, but valued above where Cease was at the time).  Vaughn < Eloy in value, but Kopech > Cease, and they come to a balance. 

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Does Cease still qualify for any prospect lists or are we still basing that on the preseason rankings? 

Anyway, I'll back off a little bit and offer a more detailed comparison. Looking back at the thread for the Q/Cease/Eloy deal thread, generally everyone considered Cease to fall in the 50-65 range, so yeah not top 50, knocking on the door of that but yes, not top 50. But, Eloy was considered consensus #5 at the time. So...I will stand with "Vaughn + Kopech" as the comp for "Eloy + Cease". Top 15 guy + Kopech (doesn't qualify, lost a year+ of control, but valued above where Cease was at the time).  Vaughn < Eloy in value, but Kopech > Cease, and they come to a balance. 

Except you're ignoring the most important factor: MLB readiness. Eloy was at A+ and Cease was at A. Kopech has seen time in MLB, and Vaughn would probably be AA or higher in a normal year. The White Sox think he could be on the MLB roster in 2021. That's why the comparison is ridiculous.

7 hours ago, bear_brian said:

If this offseason winds up being Musgrove, Quintana, Pederson and a closer, would everyone be satisfied? 

 

I'd prefer Springer, but depending on what they gave up for Musgrove, yes I can live this plan.

I think Engel deserves regular playing time, but between late inning subs and Eloy running into walls, he's sure to get plenty even if they sign Springer.  

3 hours ago, bear_brian said:

If the new pitching coach is anywhere near as good as reflected in Giolito's improvement, then we would seem to have the interesting fallback option of just keeping what we have and hope to find some more gold. With Cease, Dunning, Lopez, Kopech, Lambert, Stiever and even Crochet, it's not like there is no potential there. I would prefer at least a solid #3, but that will depend on either cost or what we would have to give up.

Welcome to Soxtalk!