SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chris Sale
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 24, 2016 13:34:10 GMT -5
You really think DeLeon, Verdugo and Holmes can get Sale? That's 3 really good prospects, but no super elite ones. Not one of them was top 50 on Keith Laws mid season update. I mean the Yankees got one higher rated prospect for each of Miller and Chapman. I'm going off of Keith Law ranking, not sure if other places have them rated higher. If I'm White Sox I'm demanding Urias if you want Sale. The problem with Dodgers is that there top 3 really elite guys are all now in majors. In this market the price for sale is going to be crazy high. I would be absolutely shocked if the Dodgers parted with Urias under any circumstance. They'd probably need to add another player (Puig?), but Seager and Urias aren't going anywhere. Maybe NYY if they'd part with Torres/Frazier/Severino+. Or even Atlanta, if they think they can rebuild quickly. The problem for Chicago is that the market is limited by their demands. The list of teams with need *and* high-end prospects, in combo, is relatively short. The Cubs? Unlikely. The Nationals, starting with Giolito? Maybe... I would be shocked if Dodger dealt Urias, but if your White Sox don't you have to get a player like that? They wanted Bradley from us, I view Urias as very close in value to Bradley. I just think they want or should want more of a sure thing if your dealing Sale on that contract. Just look at the last 4 really big deals for Chapman, Miller, Kimbrel and Shelby Miller. All those teams got a what top 35 prospect and Sale has way more value than those 4 players, it's not even close. I don't think you need to look just at prospect, they wanted Bradley from us, so they could easily take a good young player from other teams. At his Salary I think almost any team could be in play, not just big market teams. I could easily see a team coming out of no where like D Backs did last winter with Miller and Grienke. Adding Puig to that Dodgers package is interesting. I guess it's all how they view him, but that might be a tempting offer if they think Puig just needs a fresh start. But the Dodgers have been hanging onto there prospects for years now, so it would be a little surprising to see them gut the system for Sale. If I was them I go after Grienke, get D Backs to kick in a bunch of money. Then send them one good prospect and some ok ones.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 24, 2016 17:10:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 24, 2016 17:10:32 GMT -5
I would be absolutely shocked if the Dodgers parted with Urias under any circumstance. They'd probably need to add another player (Puig?), but Seager and Urias aren't going anywhere. Maybe NYY if they'd part with Torres/Frazier/Severino+. Or even Atlanta, if they think they can rebuild quickly. The problem for Chicago is that the market is limited by their demands. The list of teams with need *and* high-end prospects, in combo, is relatively short. The Cubs? Unlikely. The Nationals, starting with Giolito? Maybe... I would be shocked if Dodger dealt Urias, but if your White Sox don't you have to get a player like that? They wanted Bradley from us, I view Urias as very close in value to Bradley. I just think they want or should want more of a sure thing if your dealing Sale on that contract. Just look at the last 4 really big deals for Chapman, Miller, Kimbrel and Shelby Miller. All those teams got a what top 35 prospect and Sale has way more value than those 4 players, it's not even close. I don't think you need to look just at prospect, they wanted Bradley from us, so they could easily take a good young player from other teams. At his Salary I think almost any team could be in play, not just big market teams. I could easily see a team coming out of no where like D Backs did last winter with Miller and Grienke. Adding Puig to that Dodgers package is interesting. I guess it's all how they view him, but that might be a tempting offer if they think Puig just needs a fresh start. But the Dodgers have been hanging onto there prospects for years now, so it would be a little surprising to see them gut the system for Sale. If I was them I go after Grienke, get D Backs to kick in a bunch of money. Then send them one good prospect and some ok ones. Yeah, I pretty much agree on both points. You'd think the White Sox would need a return at least close to an Urias-level guy (that's why I mentioned Giolito or Gleyber Torres) which is where the matchup difficulty lies. And yeah, LA and AZ probably do match up on Grienke. He certainly can pitch in LA, and you'd think Hazen would like to get out from under that contract. I'm really not sure where Sale lands.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 24, 2016 17:41:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 24, 2016 17:41:37 GMT -5
I would be shocked if Dodger dealt Urias, but if your White Sox don't you have to get a player like that? They wanted Bradley from us, I view Urias as very close in value to Bradley. I just think they want or should want more of a sure thing if your dealing Sale on that contract. Just look at the last 4 really big deals for Chapman, Miller, Kimbrel and Shelby Miller. All those teams got a what top 35 prospect and Sale has way more value than those 4 players, it's not even close. I don't think you need to look just at prospect, they wanted Bradley from us, so they could easily take a good young player from other teams. At his Salary I think almost any team could be in play, not just big market teams. I could easily see a team coming out of no where like D Backs did last winter with Miller and Grienke. Adding Puig to that Dodgers package is interesting. I guess it's all how they view him, but that might be a tempting offer if they think Puig just needs a fresh start. But the Dodgers have been hanging onto there prospects for years now, so it would be a little surprising to see them gut the system for Sale. If I was them I go after Grienke, get D Backs to kick in a bunch of money. Then send them one good prospect and some ok ones. Yeah, I pretty much agree on both points. You'd think the White Sox would need a return at least close to an Urias-level guy (that's why I mentioned Giolito or Gleyber Torres) which is where the matchup difficulty lies. And yeah, LA and AZ probably do match up on Grienke. He certainly can pitch in LA, and you'd think Hazen would like to get out from under that contract. I'm really not sure where Sale lands. I'm not sure if Hazen is subtracting from his roster and especially his rotation anymore, it seems like he's adding to it with the Walker trade. I think Arizona sees a open division with the Dodgers losing so many free agents. Maybe the Giants come back stronger next year with a closer but who knows. I don't think Arizona is selling. They're getting Pollock (spelling?) back from injuries last year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 24, 2016 19:48:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I pretty much agree on both points. You'd think the White Sox would need a return at least close to an Urias-level guy (that's why I mentioned Giolito or Gleyber Torres) which is where the matchup difficulty lies. And yeah, LA and AZ probably do match up on Grienke. He certainly can pitch in LA, and you'd think Hazen would like to get out from under that contract. I'm really not sure where Sale lands. I'm not sure if Hazen is subtracting from his roster and especially his rotation anymore, it seems like he's adding to it with the Walker trade. I think Arizona sees a open division with the Dodgers losing so many free agents. Maybe the Giants come back stronger next year with a closer but who knows. I don't think Arizona is selling. They're getting Pollock (spelling?) back from injuries last year. See I think the Walker trade signals they are rebuilding. You really can't say there adding to roster when they traded their second best positional player from last year to get Walker. They also have a lot of young pitching but seem to be lacking positional players. So in my eyes they are setting themselves up for a Grienke trade to get those positional players they need. Also the Dodgers and Giants talent level is a couple levels above D Backs in my opinion. The Dodgers could lose all of their free agents and still be well ahead of D Backs.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 24, 2016 20:32:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rookie13 on Nov 24, 2016 20:32:56 GMT -5
I don't see a Sale trade happening with the Dodgers, and I also don't see them trading for Greinke unless the Dbacks are willing to eat a ton of salary.
I can't imagine the White Sox trading sale unless they get a huge package that's headlined by a player who is, not only performing well at the ML level, but who has at least 3-4 years of control left.
They wanted a package from the Red Sox that started with JBJ, which I wouldn't be *too* upset with, but how in the world do the Dodgers get him without including someone like Urias or Peterson?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 24, 2016 21:03:40 GMT -5
Well if D Backs are going to trade Grienke they will be eating a ton of money. I don't know if they placed him on waivers if any team would claim him for nothing. Highest paid player in league coming off a bad year.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 10:26:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Nov 25, 2016 10:26:22 GMT -5
I don't see a Sale trade happening with the Dodgers, and I also don't see them trading for Greinke unless the Dbacks are willing to eat a ton of salary. I can't imagine the White Sox trading sale unless they get a huge package that's headlined by a player who is, not only performing well at the ML level, but who has at least 3-4 years of control left. They wanted a package from the Red Sox that started with JBJ, which I wouldn't be *too* upset with, but how in the world do the Dodgers get him without including someone like Urias or Peterson? If I was the white sox GM, I would ask the Dodgers for seagar, Uriah and Peterson. Not saying the white sox would get that, but wow what a package of they did.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2016 11:59:24 GMT -5
I don't see a Sale trade happening with the Dodgers, and I also don't see them trading for Greinke unless the Dbacks are willing to eat a ton of salary. I can't imagine the White Sox trading sale unless they get a huge package that's headlined by a player who is, not only performing well at the ML level, but who has at least 3-4 years of control left. They wanted a package from the Red Sox that started with JBJ, which I wouldn't be *too* upset with, but how in the world do the Dodgers get him without including someone like Urias or Peterson? If I was the white sox GM, I would ask the Dodgers for seagar, Uriah and Peterson. Not saying the white sox would get that, but wow what a package of they did. It's Chris Sale, not Babe Ruth.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 25, 2016 12:17:26 GMT -5
If I was the white sox GM, I would ask the Dodgers for seagar, Uriah and Peterson. Not saying the white sox would get that, but wow what a package of they did. It's Chris Sale, not Babe Ruth. Yeah, to request that would be totally nuts. Urias by himself will most likely be more valuable down the road, not too far off in the distance. But Seager AND Peterson? I mean, Porcello was every bit as good as Sale was this year if not better and he cost Cespedes, which was an even swap. I know the circumstances were different but talent-wise that made sense. JBJ for Sale makes sense, but the ChiSox can't do that unless they win the trade meaning E-Rod would have to be part of the deal but it would leave the Sox short in the OF meaning that to even that out Eaton would need to be part of the deal, but what good does that do the White Sox? It doesn't. The White Sox have to "win" the trade meaning they'd have to rip another team off. Why should the Red Sox be THAT team?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 25, 2016 14:44:13 GMT -5
It's Chris Sale, not Babe Ruth. Yeah, to request that would be totally nuts. Urias by himself will most likely be more valuable down the road, not too far off in the distance. But Seager AND Peterson? I mean, Porcello was every bit as good as Sale was this year if not better and he cost Cespedes, which was an even swap. I know the circumstances were different but talent-wise that made sense. JBJ for Sale makes sense, but the ChiSox can't do that unless they win the trade meaning E-Rod would have to be part of the deal but it would leave the Sox short in the OF meaning that to even that out Eaton would need to be part of the deal, but what good does that do the White Sox? It doesn't. The White Sox have to "win" the trade meaning they'd have to rip another team off. Why should the Red Sox be THAT team? You can't even come close to comparing Porcello to Sale. Porcello was coming off a 4 war season that was by far the best of his career. He had only one year on his deal and no where near the track record that Sale has. Sale is coming off a 4.9 war season, with a brilliant track record and is considered a true Ace. He's also signed for 3 years making 60% of what Porcello currently makes. Based on last year Bradley and Sale were equal players, but Bradley has no where near the track record Sale does. Bradley's trade value does not equal Sales at this very moment. Not saying I would trade Bradley to get Sale, because I wouldn't. I just don't understand how everyone keeps thinking that Bradley for Sale straight up is a fair deal. Bradley has 1 and 1/3 good seasons in majors, I expect him to continue that, but it's far from a given. Then add in this year's weak free agency class in regards of pitchers and Sales value is sky high right now. They can and will get a Kings ransom if they trade him. We just don't have a major need for Sale, so it makes no sense to weaken our lineup to get him.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 15:32:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Nov 25, 2016 15:32:45 GMT -5
I truly believe that in order to take the next step, this team must add another top end pitcher. The white sox have made Quintana and/or sale available.
Clearly we have the assets to make this deal happen, now it is up to dombrowski to bring it home.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2016 16:06:31 GMT -5
I truly believe that in order to take the next step, this team must add another top end pitcher. The white sox have made Quintana and/or sale available. Clearly we have the assets to make this deal happen, now it is up to dombrowski to bring it home. I truly believe that they don't need to add another top end pitcher and if they do, it will kill them down the road. The key is to aim for as many 90 win seasons as possible. It is not to try to put together a team that can win 120 games.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 17:02:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 25, 2016 17:02:38 GMT -5
I truly believe that in order to take the next step, this team must add another top end pitcher. The white sox have made Quintana and/or sale available. Clearly we have the assets to make this deal happen, now it is up to dombrowski to bring it home. I truly believe that they don't need to add another top end pitcher and if they do, it will kill them down the road. The key is to aim for as many 90 win seasons as possible. It is not to try to put together a team that can win 120 games. Yeah, regardless of how one feels about the Espinoza trade, it basically answered any and all rotation questions. Their worst starters are likely to put up #3-caliber numbers. If things break their way, they've got a 1, 1a, and three 2s, orbetter. I have no idea why anyone would want to mortgage future success for a non-guaranteed marginal (2-3 WAR) improvement for a few short years. The desire to "ace-hoard" is just getting really, really bizarre. I mean, is this an attempt to recreate the 116-win 2001 Mariners? People realize that those guys LOST, right? And plunged into years of mediocrity not long after?
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 18:07:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 25, 2016 18:07:09 GMT -5
I truly believe that they don't need to add another top end pitcher and if they do, it will kill them down the road. The key is to aim for as many 90 win seasons as possible. It is not to try to put together a team that can win 120 games. Their worst starters are likely to put up #3-caliber numbers. This is a very odd statement. Price gave you number 4 starter numbers last year. Buchholz was the equivalent to a number 6/7 starter. Eduardo Rodriguez was a number 4/5 starter without the innings. Pomeranz was a number 5 starter without the innings in the AL East. Porcello was solid but he also is their best starter with Wright who also didn't give the Sox the innings either. The Sox worst starters aren't number 3's at worst. Now I pretty much agree anything past Eduardo Rodriguez and JBJ is too much to give up in value for Sale, but the questions in this rotation are valid, especially when it comes to the innings past Price and Porcello. This rotation isn't as bullet proof as it seems and it's not a out of the realm of possibility that a upgrade could be needed at some point this coming season.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 18:15:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 25, 2016 18:15:14 GMT -5
The 120 wins is also a exaggeration imo too. I don't think anyone expects that, but 100 wins guarantees you a division and most likely a number one seed too. Ohh and there was a lot of 100 win teams that won the world series, starting with this year's Cubs and the Yankees in the late 90's. 95-100 win totals should always be the goal.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 18:40:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 25, 2016 18:40:13 GMT -5
Their worst starters are likely to put up #3-caliber numbers. This is a very odd statement. Price gave you number 4 starter numbers last year. Buchholz was the equivalent to a number 6/7 starter. Eduardo Rodriguez was a number 4/5 starter without the innings. Pomeranz was a number 5 starter without the innings in the AL East. Porcello was solid but he also is their best starter with Wright who also didn't give the Sox the innings either. The Sox worst starters aren't number 3's at worst. Now I pretty much agree anything past Eduardo Rodriguez and JBJ is too much to give up in value for Sale, but the questions in this rotation are valid, especially when it comes to the innings past Price and Porcello. This rotation isn't as bullet proof as it seems and it's not a out of the realm of possibility that a upgrade could be needed at some point this coming season. Where are you getting those numbers? I agree re: innings, but Rodriguez has been a 2.5 WAR/200 innings guy, at the ages of 22/23, well before he's even matured as an MLBer. And after his second minor league stint (and recovery from injury) he put up 2/3 numbers at worst. Both he and Wright had "freak" injuries. Wright still put up over 2 WAR in just over a half-season. And Price was a 4+-WAR pitcher. That's a 2 at worst. Yes, Pomeranz was 4-level in the AL, but (as many of his defenders note), that was almost all after he was at a career-high. He put up 3 fWAR for the year (2/3-level starter). And SD played near-neutral last year, not the pitching heaven it used to be. Buchholz is the sixth starter, I'm not including him. There are no "guarantees," but I don't see "likely" (say, 60-70%) as "odd." Both Price and Porcello show that acquiring a TOR guy doesn't mean he'll be that guy right away. I see no "need" for, and little benefit to trading for another starter. The Sox had one of the best rotations, statistically, after the All-Star break. Somebody almost always gets hurt, but that's why they picked up Buchholz's option.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 19:47:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 25, 2016 19:47:06 GMT -5
This is a very odd statement. Price gave you number 4 starter numbers last year. Buchholz was the equivalent to a number 6/7 starter. Eduardo Rodriguez was a number 4/5 starter without the innings. Pomeranz was a number 5 starter without the innings in the AL East. Porcello was solid but he also is their best starter with Wright who also didn't give the Sox the innings either. The Sox worst starters aren't number 3's at worst. Now I pretty much agree anything past Eduardo Rodriguez and JBJ is too much to give up in value for Sale, but the questions in this rotation are valid, especially when it comes to the innings past Price and Porcello. This rotation isn't as bullet proof as it seems and it's not a out of the realm of possibility that a upgrade could be needed at some point this coming season. Where are you getting those numbers? I agree re: innings, but Rodriguez has been a 2.5 WAR/200 innings guy, at the ages of 22/23, well before he's even matured as an MLBer. And after his second minor league stint (and recovery from injury) he put up 2/3 numbers at worst. Both he and Wright had "freak" injuries. Wright still put up over 2 WAR in just over a half-season. And Price was a 4+-WAR pitcher. That's a 2 at worst. Yes, Pomeranz was 4-level in the AL, but (as many of his defenders note), that was almost all after he was at a career-high. He put up 3 fWAR for the year (2/3-level starter). And SD played near-neutral last year, not the pitching heaven it used to be. Buchholz is the sixth starter, I'm not including him. There are no "guarantees," but I don't see "likely" (say, 60-70%) as "odd." Both Price and Porcello show that acquiring a TOR guy doesn't mean he'll be that guy right away. I see no "need" for, and little benefit to trading for another starter. The Sox had one of the best rotations, statistically, after the All-Star break. Somebody almost always gets hurt, but that's why they picked up Buchholz's option. The Angels just had 3-4 injuries in the rotation last year. Usually you need 8 starters to get through the year if not 9-11 starters in total. Not just 6. Pomeranz' homerun totals spiked in the AL last year. He wasn't the same guy in San Diego. Hopefully that was the innings talking by the end of the year but there was a noticeable spike there. The AL East is a complete different animal than the NL West. I agree that right now things look okay but there are no 60-70 percent odds imo. Rotations are never stagnate, as Cherrigton use to rightly say. A in season upgrade could be available for a cost at some point in the season and probably could be pursued at some point. Price had a ERA over 4 last year and gave up a lot of contact. Hopefully he becomes a number 2 at worst but there's no guarantees there. He could be starting to decline here. Last year was probably the worst overall season of his good career so far, which isn't a good sign past the age of 30. I really like Stephen Wright too but can we really expect even close to the same performance from him last year to this year? I'm also really skeptical of that too. Rodriguez has also never been a 200 innings guy, he's never come close to reaching it. Hopefully he can build to that point, fingers crossed. I just can easily see a rotation upgrade at some point. Hopefully this re-rise of Brian Johnson can come this year, they could use him badly for good depth behind Buchholz. I don't trust Owens at all really.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 25, 2016 20:34:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 25, 2016 20:34:26 GMT -5
Where are you getting those numbers? I agree re: innings, but Rodriguez has been a 2.5 WAR/200 innings guy, at the ages of 22/23, well before he's even matured as an MLBer. And after his second minor league stint (and recovery from injury) he put up 2/3 numbers at worst. Both he and Wright had "freak" injuries. Wright still put up over 2 WAR in just over a half-season. And Price was a 4+-WAR pitcher. That's a 2 at worst. Yes, Pomeranz was 4-level in the AL, but (as many of his defenders note), that was almost all after he was at a career-high. He put up 3 fWAR for the year (2/3-level starter). And SD played near-neutral last year, not the pitching heaven it used to be. Buchholz is the sixth starter, I'm not including him. There are no "guarantees," but I don't see "likely" (say, 60-70%) as "odd." Both Price and Porcello show that acquiring a TOR guy doesn't mean he'll be that guy right away. I see no "need" for, and little benefit to trading for another starter. The Sox had one of the best rotations, statistically, after the All-Star break. Somebody almost always gets hurt, but that's why they picked up Buchholz's option. The Angels just had 3-4 injuries in the rotation last year. Usually you need 8 starters to get through the year if not 9-11 starters in total. Not just 6. Pomeranz' homerun totals spiked in the AL last year. He wasn't the same guy in San Diego. Hopefully that was the innings talking by the end of the year but there was a noticeable spike there. The AL East is a complete different animal than the NL West. I agree that right now things look okay but there are no 60-70 percent odds imo. Rotations are never stagnate, as Cherrigton use to rightly say. A in season upgrade could be available for a cost at some point in the season and probably could be pursued at some point. Price had a ERA over 4 last year and gave up a lot of contact. Hopefully he becomes a number 2 at worst but there's no guarantees there. He could be starting to decline here. Last year was probably the worst overall season of his good career so far, which isn't a good sign past the age of 30. I really like Stephen Wright too but can we really expect even close to the same performance from him last year to this year? I'm also really skeptical of that too. Rodriguez has also never been a 200 innings guy, he's never come close to reaching it. Hopefully he can build to that point, fingers crossed. I just can easily see a rotation upgrade at some point. Hopefully this re-rise of Brian Johnson can come this year, they could use him badly for good depth behind Buchholz. I don't trust Owens at all really. Price (ERA of 3.99; peripherals well below) www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3184&position=PRodriguez has 3.0 fWAR in 230 career innings. Pomeranz had 3.0 fWAR in 170 innings last year. Wright had 2.8 fWAR in 156 innings last year. Those are all 3-or-better starters. Yes, starters get hurt. But there's no special exception for players traded for, either. And there's no guarantee the acquired pitcher pitches to career levels. Upgrading from a "3" in Pomeranz to a "2" in Quintana, say, helps the team very little. And if it means giving up Kopech, or JBJ, or Moncada...it hurts the team. I doubt Price opts out. He'd have to be absolutely nails for the next two years to beat his current contract. It's possible, but unlikely. Porcello has three more years. Rodriguez four. Pomeranz two. Wright five. They probably expect Kopech to be ready for sure by the start of 2019, and possibly much earlier. The Sox have Buchholz, Johnson, Owens, Elias as starters 6-9. Kopech may even be a viable option by August. Haley may, if he's still around. What is the "benefit" of getting another high-end starter, if it creates holes elsewhere on the roster? They can't just *hoard* TOR starters. The other guys need to pitch, or be traded. I like Quintana, but it depends on who they give up. My point is that no matter who they get (unless it's Kershaw, or Scherzer, or another *true* ace, a perennial Cy candidate), the benefit over who they already have is small. Maybe 2 wins. Keep the rotation as is (with Pomeranz, Wright, and Rodriguez all getting $3M or less), and spend those $ on a quality bullpen arm. Gain a win there. Hell, gain another win when Rodriguez puts it together. This team has very few holes, and zero major ones. Even without Ortiz they're likely to lead the AL in runs again (they were 101 more than Cle). Their rotation is better and more stable. What's the obsession with trading a bunch of prospects to marginally improve something that doesn't even look like a weakness?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 25, 2016 21:29:32 GMT -5
Yeah, to request that would be totally nuts. Urias by himself will most likely be more valuable down the road, not too far off in the distance. But Seager AND Peterson? I mean, Porcello was every bit as good as Sale was this year if not better and he cost Cespedes, which was an even swap. I know the circumstances were different but talent-wise that made sense. JBJ for Sale makes sense, but the ChiSox can't do that unless they win the trade meaning E-Rod would have to be part of the deal but it would leave the Sox short in the OF meaning that to even that out Eaton would need to be part of the deal, but what good does that do the White Sox? It doesn't. The White Sox have to "win" the trade meaning they'd have to rip another team off. Why should the Red Sox be THAT team? You can't even come close to comparing Porcello to Sale. Porcello was coming off a 4 war season that was by far the best of his career. He had only one year on his deal and no where near the track record that Sale has. Sale is coming off a 4.9 war season, with a brilliant track record and is considered a true Ace. He's also signed for 3 years making 60% of what Porcello currently makes. Based on last year Bradley and Sale were equal players, but Bradley has no where near the track record Sale does. Bradley's trade value does not equal Sales at this very moment. Not saying I would trade Bradley to get Sale, because I wouldn't. I just don't understand how everyone keeps thinking that Bradley for Sale straight up is a fair deal. Bradley has 1 and 1/3 good seasons in majors, I expect him to continue that, but it's far from a given. Then add in this year's weak free agency class in regards of pitchers and Sales value is sky high right now. They can and will get a Kings ransom if they trade him. We just don't have a major need for Sale, so it makes no sense to weaken our lineup to get him. Like I said, the circumstances were different. My point was that both players were considered equal value when swapped for each other. Both players, Cespedes and Porcello blossomed. If they were swapped for each other again - if the years and contracts were similar, they wouldn't be too far off of each in value. I was applying that point to the original thought of dealing Urias, Pedersen AND Seager for Sale in that if one is not far off the value of the other you don't want to overpay like that proposal would be. Applying that to Bradley while JBJ and Sale might have similar value according to WAR, Sale is more valuable, but not only because of the established track record but because he's a top of the rotation starter which is one of the most valuable commodities in baseball, more valuable than a great defensive CF who has become a good offensive player. I personally would trade JBJ for Sale even up. With Mookie and Benintendi around the Sox would only need to get a corner OF or perhaps Moncada winds up in the OF - if Devers develops as hoped for that's where Moncada could wind up anyways.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2016 12:44:51 GMT -5
Price (ERA of 3.99; peripherals well below) www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3184&position=PRodriguez has 3.0 fWAR in 230 career innings. Pomeranz had 3.0 fWAR in 170 innings last year. Wright had 2.8 fWAR in 156 innings last year. Those are all 3-or-better starters. This is a pretty optimistic take. Both Pomeranz and Wright each have all of three months of being above-average MLB starting pitchers. As recently as a year ago, they were both DFA candidates. Rodriguez has had struggles with injury and inconsistency. None of the three has pitched a full season's worth of innings. All three of them could very well be above-average MLB starters, but they all come with significant risk, especially in terms of the number of innings you can reasonably expect from them next year and, for Pomeranz and Rodriguez, in terms of injury.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2016 12:59:30 GMT -5
Price (ERA of 3.99; peripherals well below) www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3184&position=PRodriguez has 3.0 fWAR in 230 career innings. Pomeranz had 3.0 fWAR in 170 innings last year. Wright had 2.8 fWAR in 156 innings last year. Those are all 3-or-better starters. This is a pretty optimistic take. Both Pomeranz and Wright each have all of three months of being above-average MLB starting pitchers. As recently as a year ago, they were both DFA candidates. Rodriguez has had struggles with injury and inconsistency. None of the three has pitched a full season's worth of innings. All three of them could very well be above-average MLB starters, but they all come with significant risk, especially in terms of the number of innings you can reasonably expect from them next year and, for Pomeranz and Rodriguez, in terms of injury. Wright was never actually a DFA candidate, c'mon. I don't disagree other than that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2016 13:28:20 GMT -5
This is a pretty optimistic take. Both Pomeranz and Wright each have all of three months of being above-average MLB starting pitchers. As recently as a year ago, they were both DFA candidates. Rodriguez has had struggles with injury and inconsistency. None of the three has pitched a full season's worth of innings. All three of them could very well be above-average MLB starters, but they all come with significant risk, especially in terms of the number of innings you can reasonably expect from them next year and, for Pomeranz and Rodriguez, in terms of injury. Wright was never actually a DFA candidate, c'mon. I don't disagree other than that. It was a minority position, but there were certainly folks around here who thought Wright would/should be DFAed. See, e.g., here or here or here.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 13:41:09 GMT -5
Price (ERA of 3.99; peripherals well below) www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3184&position=PRodriguez has 3.0 fWAR in 230 career innings. Pomeranz had 3.0 fWAR in 170 innings last year. Wright had 2.8 fWAR in 156 innings last year. Those are all 3-or-better starters. This is a pretty optimistic take. Both Pomeranz and Wright each have all of three months of being above-average MLB starting pitchers. As recently as a year ago, they were both DFA candidates. Rodriguez has had struggles with injury and inconsistency. None of the three has pitched a full season's worth of innings. All three of them could very well be above-average MLB starters, but they all come with significant risk, especially in terms of the number of innings you can reasonably expect from them next year and, for Pomeranz and Rodriguez, in terms of injury. So you think we need another TOR pitcher? Or another starter? I mean almost every pitching staff in majors has question marks.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 13:49:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 13:49:48 GMT -5
No one is saying the Sox need another starter at the moment or need another "ace" like starting pitcher. To me and others points here is saying that a need in the rotation could be had at some point in the year because the rotation isn't as much of a lock as others see it.
I could easily see Dave Dombrowski acquiring another starter in July even though there's no need for one right now. Circumstances change in terms of both performance and injuries.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2016 14:02:27 GMT -5
This is a pretty optimistic take. Both Pomeranz and Wright each have all of three months of being above-average MLB starting pitchers. As recently as a year ago, they were both DFA candidates. Rodriguez has had struggles with injury and inconsistency. None of the three has pitched a full season's worth of innings. All three of them could very well be above-average MLB starters, but they all come with significant risk, especially in terms of the number of innings you can reasonably expect from them next year and, for Pomeranz and Rodriguez, in terms of injury. So you think we need another TOR pitcher? Or another starter? I mean almost every pitching staff in majors has question marks. I'm fine with the current rotation and am not saying they need to trade for Chris Sale. Their (relatively limited) resources could be better spent elsewhere. But there is real risk in the back half of the rotation. Those guys all have upside, but they also have limited track records and a fairly low floor.
|
|
|