21 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Full disclosure here: multiple Cubs bloggers messaged me this morning asking about this and I didn't know anything. Separately, I heard from a Seattle person mentioning Owen Caissie, Harry Ford and Emerson Hancock with Hoerner involved to Seattle. As soon as I commented on the tweet from that Cubs blogger, I received a message from someone I trust saying it's nothing. 

I'm just going to assume that this one isn't happening. 

It doesn’t really make sense for Seattle (unless more was going there)

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by Bob Sacamano

6 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Yep...that Cub vs Sox thing is over.  Jerry has waved the white flag.  

Cubs aren't exactly trying to set the world on fire. Their fanbase has every right to be just as mad but they will still fill that dumb place up.

32 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Full disclosure here: multiple Cubs bloggers messaged me this morning asking about this and I didn't know anything. Separately, I heard from a Seattle person mentioning Owen Caissie, Harry Ford and Emerson Hancock with Hoerner involved to Seattle. As soon as I commented on the tweet from that Cubs blogger, I received a message from someone I trust saying it's nothing. 

I'm just going to assume that this one isn't happening. 

This info is much appreciated.

I can see Caissie being involved...it's easier to trade non-homegrown prospects.
But what I don't see (from his stats) is Caissie's eliteness.  A lot of K in his game.

His D doesn't project to be much.  You're betting on that hit tool really delivering 30 HR+ per season.  Could happen.

Edited December 5, 20241 yr by GreenSox

1 hour ago, Bob Sacamano said:

It doesn’t really make sense for Seattle unless more was going there)

What doesn’t make sense for the Mariners? It’s already been reported they have talked about Hoerner. 
 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/12/mariners-have-had-trade-talks-involving-alec-bohm-nico-hoerner.html

FWIW Kaplan said tonight there’s smoke regarding Cubs going after an impact pitcher like Crochet or Castillo.

Owen Caissie, Kevin Alcantara, Logan Evans, and Michael Arroyo

That seems like close to best case scenario in a Cubs/Mariners 3 team with Hoerner going to Seattle…and it feels pretty underwhelming. Decent depth, but I don’t see how we get 2 high end prospects in that scenario 

1 hour ago, TheFutureIsNear said:

What doesn’t make sense for the Mariners? It’s already been reported they have talked about Hoerner. 
 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/12/mariners-have-had-trade-talks-involving-alec-bohm-nico-hoerner.html

I know that. What doesn’t make sense is the fan proposals of them giving up their big prospects to the Sox like they’re the ones trading for Crochet when they’re only getting Hoerner. Thats what doesn’t make sense.

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by Bob Sacamano

1 hour ago, Bob Sacamano said:

I know that. What doesn’t make sense is the fan proposals of them giving up their big prospects to the Sox like they’re the ones trading for Crochet when they’re only getting Hoerner. Thats what doesn’t make sense.

Got ya, and agree. I’d hope for 2 from their 7-12 range…that might even be pushing it for Hoerner.

From MLB.com:

The wild card in the pitching pursuit could be Garrett Crochet, who is expected to be traded by the White Sox at some point this winter. Other starting pitchers may become available via trade at some point, but barring a surprising development, Crochet appears to be the cream of the trade crop, putting the White Sox in a strong position.

“If teams are paying $20 million-plus for middle-tier starters, what is he worth?” an NL executive said.

11 hours ago, fathom said:

Fegan out there on podcast floating idea of 3 team trade.  Seems he was referencing Braves involvement.

 

I just wrote a post a couple days ago saying give anyone with good prospcts they're willing to part with 48 Hrs to work out an extension which would then net the Sox a better trade package in return.

Just have to have a trade almost finished with a prospect to be added if they can extent him. If not then onto the next team.

4 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I just wrote a post a couple days ago saying give anyone with good prospcts they're willing to part with 48 Hrs to work out an extension which would then net the Sox a better trade package in return.

Just have to have a trade almost finished with a prospect to be added if they can extent him. If not then onto the next team.

I doubt Getz would do this as it underscores the crazy value Crochet provides these next two years alone plus the draft pick a team would get if he were to exit via free agency.

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I doubt Getz would do this as it underscores the crazy value Crochet provides these next two years alone plus the draft pick a team would get if he were to exit via free agency.

Plus, that never happens when the player has multiple years of control when traded.

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I doubt Getz would do this as it underscores the crazy value Crochet provides these next two years alone plus the draft pick a team would get if he were to exit via free agency.

If you were trading for Crochet wouldn't you want him for more than 2 years if he was willing to sign a  reasonably priced extension if only for another year guaranteed then another couple years but with opt outs.

While many players take the stance of betting on themselves Crochet and his agent have to know you weigh the risk of pitching for 2 more years for maybe $10M and ending up with less future $ if you get hurt or underperform vs signing for close to $100M to get 10 x as much while getting opt outs to possibly make $200M+  best case scenario. Worst case scenario is saying I'll take the risk I'm a healthy great pitcher for 2 more years and then youre not and you end up getting a bare minimum pension.

Why not get paid $20-25M   per year for the next 3 years if you can get it then opt out if you live up to the hype and then get a $200M contract. It's a lot better than getting  $10M for 2 years of service time while risking all your future paychecks.  If he does this right and becomes elite he could amass over $300M.

34 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Plus, that never happens when the player has multiple years of control when traded.

Who's to say it can't happen though ? Crochet continuing to stay healthy and reaching his full potential would be like having prime Sale. You could risk losing that or have the choice of keeping him .

Even if you get him for just an extra year isn't it worth it to take a risk ? There's a number of different ways an extension could work. Why should Getz just give that opportunity to a team for nothing ? If the team that gets Crochet wants to wait a year to see how he pitches in 2025 they're then risking Crochet pitching very well and becoming even more expensive. It's much easier then for Crochet to say I'll take my chances and bet on myself for 1 year rather than 2 years. It cuts his risk in half .

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

11 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Who's to say it can't happen though ? Crochet continuing to stay healthy and reaching his full potential would be like having prime Sale. You could risk losing that or have the choice of keeping him .

Even if you get him for just an extra year isn't it worth it to take a risk ? There's a number of different ways an extension could work. Why should Getz just give that opportunity to a team for nothing ? If the team that gets Crochet wants to wait a year to see how he pitches in 2025 they're then risking Crochet pitching very well and becoming even more expensive. It's much easier then for Crochet to say I'll take my chances and bet on myself for 1 year rather than 2 years. It cuts his risk in half .

It doesn’t happen. They would get an exclusive 2 years to negotiate an extension. Why would a team give up more if they don’t have to?

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by Bob Sacamano

9 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

If you were trading for Crochet wouldn't you want him for more than 2 years if he was willing to sign a  reasonably priced extension if only for another year guaranteed then another couple years but with opt outs.

While many players take the stance of betting on themselves Crochet and his agent have to know you weigh the risk of pitching for 2 more years for maybe $10M and ending up with less future $ if you get hurt or underperform vs signing for close to $100M to get 10 x as much while getting opt outs to possibly make $200M+  best case scenario. Worst case scenario is saying I'll take the risk I'm a healthy great pitcher for 2 more years and then youre not and you end up getting a bare minimum pension.

Why not get paid $20-25M   per year for the next 3 years if you can get it then opt out if you live up to the hype and then get a $200M contract. It's a lot better than getting  $10M for 2 years of service time while risking all your future paychecks.  If he does this right and becomes elite he could amass over $300M.

Well yeah, I’d look to extend him if I were the acquiring team’s GM, but Getz doesn’t need to make a trade that’s conditional on an extension.  There’s a ton of unnecessary risk in doing that.

The reality is Crochet is a premium asset and he should be marketed like one.  If I were Getz, I go into the Winter Meetings and tell everyone he will be dealt for the best package by the end of the event.  I wouldn’t give the opposing GMs time to f*** around and play the slow game.  Tell them they can either have a truly elite SP on the cheap for the next two years who is open to an extension or they can overpay for mid tier SP in free agency.  The former will come at a high cost, but is far more likely to make a difference in October than other any pitcher available.  You want the unicorn, you got to pay unicorn prices.

It’s really that simple and Getz doesn’t need to over complicate things.  This trade should be done on our timeline & terms.  The only exception is maybe waiting for Burnes to sign, but honestly, I would take advantage of the Winter Meetings setting regardless.  Having every GM in one spot and being able to commit 24 hours a day to negotiation is a huge plus as a seller and increases the chances of one GM doing something stupid as result of FOMO.

8 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

It doesn’t happen. They would get an exclusive 2 years to negotiate an extension. Why would a team give up more if they don’t have to?

Crochet talked about wanting an extension, but I doubt he is looking to get only an additional year added outside of arbitration.  Players have egos.  I’m sure Crochet looks at a guy like Glasgow as a comparison, thinks he’s just as good if not better, and expects a similar 5-year extension and money.

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by WhiteSox2023

11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Well yeah, I’d look to extend him if I were the acquiring team’s GM, but Getz doesn’t need to make a trade that’s conditional on an extension.  There’s a ton of unnecessary risk in doing that.

The reality is Crochet is a premium asset and he should be marketed like one.  If I were Getz, I go into the Winter Meetings and tell everyone he will be dealt for the best package by the end of the event.  I wouldn’t give the opposing GMs time to f*** around and play the slow game.  Tell them they can either have a truly elite SP on the cheap for the next two years who is open to an extension or they can overpay for mid tier SP in free agency.  The former will come at a high cost, but is far more likely to make a difference in October than other any pitcher available.  You want the unicorn, you got to pay unicorn prices.

It’s really that simple and Getz doesn’t need to over complicate things.  This trade should be done on our timeline & terms.  The only exception is maybe waiting for Burnes to sign, but honestly, I would take advantage of the Winter Meetings setting regardless.  Having every GM in one spot and being able to commit 24 hours a day to negotiation is a huge plus as a seller and increases the chances of one GM doing something stupid as result of FOMO.

No one does really. Outside of a handful of times when a star with a year left on the deal got a window, it doesn't really happen. And agreed about unnecessary risk. A team could trade for him now and extend him next offseason if they want.

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by Bob Sacamano

36 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

If you were trading for Crochet wouldn't you want him for more than 2 years if he was willing to sign a  reasonably priced extension if only for another year guaranteed then another couple years but with opt outs.

While many players take the stance of betting on themselves Crochet and his agent have to know you weigh the risk of pitching for 2 more years for maybe $10M and ending up with less future $ if you get hurt or underperform vs signing for close to $100M to get 10 x as much while getting opt outs to possibly make $200M+  best case scenario. Worst case scenario is saying I'll take the risk I'm a healthy great pitcher for 2 more years and then youre not and you end up getting a bare minimum pension.

Why not get paid $20-25M   per year for the next 3 years if you can get it then opt out if you live up to the hype and then get a $200M contract. It's a lot better than getting  $10M for 2 years of service time while risking all your future paychecks.  If he does this right and becomes elite he could amass over $300M.

We all talked about this in the summer. Why would Crochet sign a reasonably priced extension? I could see getting one extra year to guarantee the arb years, and 3/$45 would probably be cheap. All he has to do is wait his 2 seasons, stay healthy, and he's in the money. 

His concern about the extension was mostly about last year, throwing starter innings for the first time, then being relied upon to pitch well into the playoffs. 

7 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

No one does really. Outside of a handful of times when a star with a year left on the deal got a window, it doesn't really happen. And agreed about unnecessary risk. A team could trade for him now and extend him next offseason if they want.

And that window to cut an extension with the player is more about the player waiving a no-trade clause. 

5 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

And that window to cut an extension with the player is more about the player waiving a no-trade clause. 

That too. Leverage.

2 hours ago, Bob Sacamano said:

It doesn’t happen. They would get an exclusive 2 years to negotiate an extension. Why would a team give up more if they don’t have to?

A team would do that to lock in a reasonable rate and to guarantee some extra control. Let’s do an example.

7 year, $150 million deal. Y1 $10 million, Y2 $15 million, Y3-Y7 $25 million each.

Opt out after Y3 (or Y4, take your pick on what you want to guarantee).

The team locks Crochet down for 3-4 years if he’s good, if he’s injured you can still afford the backside and some portion of that is probably insurable against serious injury. 

Crochet turns 26 this season in June. If you give him an opt out after Y4 he hits free agency again at 29. He gives up 1 or 2 years of control to put a guaranteed 9 figures in the bank. Fiddle with the numbers a little if you’d like, that’s a good setup for 27-28 teams.

Think about this: Cease and Crochet at the top of the White Sox rotation.

33 minutes ago, Highland said:

Think about this: Cease and Crochet at the top of the White Sox rotation.

We'll be here 6 years from now saying the same about Hagen Smith and Noah Schultz