9 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Have you looked at his numbers in Charlotte since he was moved to the pen or watched any of his relief work?

I just think MLB hitters will be more prone to layoff his stuff causing more walks. Just not sure this is the time to call him up.

10 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

This deal didn’t need Boston Smith quite frankly.

It’s really the only part of the trade I’m bothered by.

Just now, fathom said:

His baseball savant page is awful

This might be the new strategy to bring in more Dominicans lol??

baseballsavant.com

Luis Castillo Stats: Statcast, Visuals & Advanced Metrics

(2026) Avg Exit Velocity: 90.2, Hard Hit %: 41.7, wOBA: .340, xwOBA: .337, Barrel %: 9.7.

On April 11th, Castillo threw the first and only cutter of his career. I like to think this is what caught Brian Bannister's eye.

(It was probably just a badly released fastball or something)

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Same here. I am one of the biggest Boston Smith Stan’s on this board and my biggest issue with the trade is with Castillo himself. His numbers are almost as bad as Fedds’s! And it’s not like he’s still in prime…his stuff has been gradually declining the past few years. This just seems like a low upside but costly gamble.

Thought experiment....who could the Sox have gotten packaging Boston Smith and Jacob Gonzalez?

5 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Why would you doubt that we’re trying to land a big trade target?

A) Because we aren't.

B) Because JR is still running the show.

Look it would be nice if you are right but the last time the Sox absolutely positively went after one of the best and got him was when they signed Albert Belle, who produced terrific numbers.

That was in 1997...a long time ago.

The Sox simply don't operate in the way you, me and other fans would wish them to.

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Yet to see any of the main baseball guys on Twitter say this was a good deal. Even Nightengale and Jesse Rogers seem puzzled.

We were talking about Boston Smith being too much for someone like Peralta, who is having just as bad of a year as Castillo. But now we gave up Smith and have to risk paying Castillo $30 million over the next 1.5 years. Sure, Dominguez offsets some of that, but not enough. Peralta is also making only $8 mil this year, so his pro rated contract would be extremely cheap.

32 minutes ago, HeGetzUs said:

Going to assume player A is Castillo and B is Fedde

Yup. And Castillo is obviously the better pitcher and has some theoretical ceiling there, but the stats are shockingly close on paper and Fedde is costing us only $1.5M while Castillo is essentially on a 2/$28M deal for us (if you view Dominguez as zero value) that required us to also give up a prospect.

2 minutes ago, chw42 said:

So they're gonna piggyback with Castillo again? lol

Well I meant Fedde/Schultz sharing that spot

20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

this reeks of a GM first time buying and being raked over the coals.

Raked over the coals?

We gave up a no name OF, a AA guy who was on no one’s radar before this season, and an MLB closer we’re paying $10M to no longer pitch in any high leverage situation. In return we get a 33yo SP with a solid history.

Castillo allowed 7er twice in April and 5er in a recent start against the Dodgers. That’ll hurt ann ERA. Outside of that, he hasn’t given up more than 4er in a start all season. He’s had 3QS in June and July, with another 2QS where he was yanked after 5 2/3.

Getz wasn’t raked over the coals. None of us should give a s%*# about money. The only drawback is Smith, an unproven guy in AA who isn’t doing a damn thing for us to help win games this season.

6 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Why would you doubt that we’re trying to land a big trade target?

I think it would be like spending out of your 401k before you’re 59 1/2 to buy a new Jeep. You’re screwing your long term upside out of extreme thirst for one moment of weakness. And yes, I am talking about myself again.

1 minute ago, Jake said:

Well I meant Fedde/Schultz sharing that spot

Hmm yeah I could definitely see the benefits there.

7 minutes ago, fathom said:

Don’t want to give up our main prospects

I don’t trust that media line as far as I can throw it. Yes, there are likely some untouchables but I do believe there is a very select list of A tier trade targets they are talking on who would require us to move some of our young guys.

And I wouldn’t be against it one bit.

Who was the last big "name" starting pitcher they added at a deadline prior to James Shields?

(Yes, that was May 2016.)

Francisco Liriano?

1 minute ago, wegner said:

Thought experiment....who could the Sox have gotten packaging Boston Smith and Jacob Gonzalez?

This is the most confusing part, if the peralta thing is real.

Peralta is better than castillo, and owed like 4 million. Framework of trade was around Wolkow and Smith. Values are no where near similar.

Just now, caulfield12 said:

Who was the last big "name" starting pitcher they added at a deadline prior to James Shields?

(Yes, that was May 2016.)

Francisco Liriano?

We'd probably have to go back to Jose Contreras or Freddy Garcia before Liriano.

1 minute ago, mmmmmbeeer said:

Raked over the coals?

We gave up a no name OF, a AA guy who was on no one’s radar before this season, and an MLB closer we’re paying $10M to no longer pitch in any high leverage situation. In return we get a 33yo SP with a solid history.

Castillo allowed 7er twice in April and 5er in a recent start against the Dodgers. That’ll hurt ann ERA. Outside of that, he hasn’t given up more than 4er in a start all season. He’s had 3QS in June and July, with another 2QS where he was yanked after 5 2/3.

Getz wasn’t raked over the coals. None of us should give a s%*# about money. The only drawback is Smith, an unproven guy in AA who isn’t doing a damn thing for us to help win games this season.

I appreciate this post - was looking for someone to have a positive take on this and was nice to at least see some of these thoughts. I was just looking at his pure numbers and struggling.

36 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

I'm honestly shocked that people are clutching their pearls over 1. the money and the contracts! and 2. Seranthony has figured it out!

1. It's not our money. I don't care if it costs a little bit more - we have so much more revenue this year from being good, Ishbia is writing checks now, and I don't care if Jerry loses money if it doesn't work out

2. Someone else can be fooled into thinking Seranthony has figured it out. He's due way too much money to walk the first batter of every single relief appearance.

This is a low risk move for us. Yes, Boston is a fun prospect to watch but that's the risk of trying to get better now. I like this move up and down.

The “it’s not our money” is a poor excuse to defend a trade. This dude is one of your five SPs next year. Ignore all the other younger, more productive arms that will be available this offseason that we could have used this money on…we just settled on Castillo being that guy because we wanted the smallest of upgrades for the post season.

10 minutes ago, zisk said:

LCast 25-28 homers last 3 full seasons. Pitching half the time in Seattle. He's gonna hate The Rate.

I suspect he can mitigate that by altering his pitch mix and bringing his sinker back at a high frequency in home starts.

37 minutes ago, fathom said:

If he was a rental, it would be low risk.

Yup.

7 minutes ago, hi8is said:

I really don’t think this hurts 2027 one bit. We should have a lot of spending room and I also believe that Castillo can be one of the best number 5s in baseball.

Heck, if there is no baseball, (do the minor leagues stop too?), at least for 2028 the MiLB prospects may have more value built up by then to get better deals in trade compensation

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Chick Mercedes

1 minute ago, Chick Mercedes said:

I think it would be like spending out of your 401k before you’re 59 1/2 to buy a new Jeep. You’re screwing your long term upside out of extreme thirst for one moment of weakness. And yes, I am talking about myself again.

What make/model?

Did you get a discount from the Sox adjacent scouting department...or zero interest financing at least?

9 minutes ago, Jake said:

Wouldn't shock me if the Sox keep Noah around and/or possibly sorta play matchups with that spot in the rotation.

Highly doubtful considering one of the speculated reasons Castillo has struggled this year is that he was in that position with the M’s already.

21 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Schweitzer is a rookie and one rocking a 4.3 K per 9 rate.

I didn't say he wasn't. Just that he's not getting replace by one.

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The “it’s not our money” is a poor excuse to defend a trade. This dude is one of your five SPs next year. Ignore all the other younger, more productive arms that will be available this offseason that we could have used this money on…we just settled on Castillo being that guy because we wanted the smallest of upgrades for the post season.

If they can even make it that far.

Not much of a vote of confidence in all the young pitchers contributing...