My take is that they probably think that they can be closer to contention by trading him than by keeping him, and I really strongly agree.
That's the kind of price you're going to have to pay to pry him away. It may be 1 guy too much, but not "way" too much. It will absolutely take both Swihart and Devers. This is a guy who is signed for 4 years at a crazy good contract, and is probably the best pitcher on the planet not named Kershaw.
Of course it's a lot. But it seems to me the larger point of SFF's (pretty good, I thought) post was that Chicago has particular needs that they would seek to address as part of a trade for Sale - if they were to consider such a trade, because of what Sale means for them. They need to get players who would fill those slots, and SFF offered a good framework of what they'd likely seek from Boston. If Boston is not inclined to pay that (or at least something approximating that, then why would Chicago consider trading Sale?
Agree it's a ton. If you can keep Benintendi, Espinoza, and Moncada/Devers, as well as Betts, Bogaerts, and Rodriguez, you're still in extremely good shape.
You said it better than me, appreciate the clarification. As you said - the Sox line up with them very well because of the areas that the ChiSox need help in the farm, and the areas from which the Sox can deal.
I mean, I'm of the belief that the Hanley at first base plan is a smoke screen. Are we really going into next season hoping that an older player who was a butcher in the field last year is capable of manning an infield position he's never played before with a little off-season conditioning and a month of spring training games? Obviously you say he's your first base plan because it gives you SOME trade leverage, but I can't imagine it'll actually happen.
That's clearly too much overall, but mostly because it's too light in pitching and too heavy in A-ball talent. I can't see any reason for the White Sox to deal 4 years of Sale without expecting to get at least 6 years of EdRo in return.
I have no idea if that's what we're doing. But he's on the team and I doubt we're going to pay him to sit the bench if we bring Freeman in.
Sure, but I'm not sure Hanley needs to go first. If Freeman is available now, and the price is right, you worry about him later.
Yeah, I'm not arguing against it. But at that point the Sox will be paying a lot more freight to get rid of him as we would then have no use for him.
This
I disagree. The ChiSox right now have Sale, Quintana, Rodon, and Danks. All LHP. Proposing ERod and Johnson would essentially give them 5 starters that are all LH. They have Fullmer coming up, but for the most part, their rotation is in good shape. Owens may not work for the same reason, but ERod isn't someone they would demand.
Your first sentence is beyond crazy.
Well, going from 75% to 80% is an iota. But, it's not my money. The dude will be hard to deal as it is, this will make it slightly harder.
Exactly. They aren't winning with him because their offense is complete garbage, and there is no end in sight. If they don't trade him, they're going to have to throw money at C, 3B, SS, 2B, and RF (unless you buy into Trayce Thompson. Sorry, I don't).
Quintana isn't going to get the return that would alter the future of the franchise like Sale would. They can trade Quintana, but they're not going to get back a Swihart and Devers type of a return. It will be more like Margot, Shaw, Owens. Certainly they could explore that, as you said.
This isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison. A team needs a stud pitcher, because their rotation has five pitchers and if their best pitcher isn't a "stud" then all their other pitchers are, by definition, not studs either. Of course many great teams have survived with mediocre hitting shortstops, because they have good hitters at other positions (fielding is another story, obviously).
Money would be the short answer. Sox 2nd half showed that this team is capable of winning with a couple small tweaks. The Sox have a young core that played extremely well in the 2nd half, as well as a farm system that would allow them to trade and fill needs.
The White Sox had the 19th oldest roster -- by way of average age -- in MLB last season. The Red Sox had the second oldest.
A fair point, though the White Sox have $20 million to spend this year and will have more in 2017 after they jettison LaRoche. There are free agents that that they could afford that could really make a difference.
This is semantics. I'm talking about impact players. The guys who the Red Sox are building around are Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, ERod. Four kids who are 22/23.
If by that, you mean, the ChiSox could probably fix their team into an AL Wild Card contender for just money, then okay.
No, it's fact. The only offensive starters the White Sox had who were over 30 last season were LaRoche (at DH) and Alexi Ramirez (at SS). Ramirez is now a FA and Chicago is looking to bridge to Tim Anderson, who's in AA. None of their top 5 starters or top 5 relievers were over 30.
And the point is that the White Sox offensive starters were all pretty much awful except for Eaton and Abreu. They have a bunch of holes they have to fill and they have no youth coming up to fill those holes, which means they ahve to fill them with free agency, which eats at payroll flexibility. For them to be good, they need to fill C, 3B, SS, 2B, and RF. None of those are coming internally. For the Red Sox to fill their holes, they need, what, a SP and a couple pen arms? Maybe a 4th OF? And their payroll is much more manageable given that they have league min salaries at C, SS, CF, & RF?
The Red Sox are extremely fortunate, fiscally speaking. The Chicago White Sox have annual team revenues of $227 million. The Boston Red Sox have annual team revenues of $370 million.
This is skewed because the team that started and the one that finished were very different. If you look at the starting 9 plus the 5 starters you have:
Ok, let me rephrase White Sox have a core of Abreu, Eaton, Sale, Rodon, and Robertson. They are in their mid to late 20's. When I said the Sox core is young, I mean pre-arbitration years. Of that group, Rodon and Eaton meet that standard.
I don't even know what you're arguing.
And by the way, the discussion that started this wasn't regarding my potential offer. It was the question of what we would expect in return for Betts, and why aren't the Red Sox and White Sox in the same spot. So, not at all related to the offer.
a) no it isn't the price you're going to have to pa.
Swihart, Owens, and Guerra probably doesn't get the deal done but it sure as hell gets a call back. Swihart and Guerra are potentially excellent players at premium positions. Owens is a lefty with a demonstrated ability to miss bats, and both Swihart and Owens are in the bigs now so there's not as much chance they just blow up and turn into nothing as say, Espinoza.
You're being highly deceptive. The Sox have two guys in key positions who will be playing the 2016 season at 40 and 42. The next oldest we have playing anything resembling a key position is Ryan Hanigan playing backup catcher at 35 and the next starters are Pedroia and Ramirez who will play 2013 at 32. 32 aint young, but it sure as heck aint old.
