PDA

View Full Version : Peavy to AZ?


Fastball23
07-12-2013, 08:08 AM
Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN2h (https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/355630558019190785)
Diamondbacks are among the teams talking about Jake Peavy, and CWS have had scouts on hand at Arizona games; they've seen Randall Delgado.

pythons007
07-12-2013, 08:15 AM
Look into some position players!!!!

Fastball23
07-12-2013, 08:35 AM
Look into some position players!!!!

If Peavy goes to AZ, I'd like to see the Sox get Owings and Stryker Trahan

kittle42
07-12-2013, 09:39 AM
Randall Delgado isn't even a prized prospect anymore.

Tragg
07-12-2013, 10:17 AM
If they trade him for Delgado, that would suggest the Williams giveaway program is still up and running. That won't happen.
Heck, we'd be better off getting the 2nd pitcher that we traded/gave for Edwin Jackson back.
I do wonder about Hahn's comments, as reported in the media, that he's looking for "major league ready" players. That doesn't necessarily mean high ceiling - it could mean Gillespie types and middle relievers, and guys eligible for Rule 5. I'd rather go after high ceiling players, even if they a couple of years away.

Fastball23
07-12-2013, 10:19 AM
How about Peavy & Crain to AZ for Owings, Trahan, Davidson and Barret?

blandman
07-12-2013, 10:35 AM
If they trade him for Delgado, that would suggest the Williams giveaway program is still up and running. That won't happen.
Heck, we'd be better off getting the 2nd pitcher that we traded/gave for Edwin Jackson back.
I do wonder about Hahn's comments, as reported in the media, that he's looking for "major league ready" players. That doesn't necessarily mean high ceiling - it could mean Gillespie types and middle relievers, and guys eligible for Rule 5. I'd rather go after high ceiling players, even if they a couple of years away.

This is, indeed, a dark time to be a White Sox fan. Miserable team and system, and a front office in denial. We're officially what the Cubs were the last 30 years. Reinsdorf needs to go.

doublem23
07-12-2013, 10:51 AM
This is, indeed, a dark time to be a White Sox fan. Miserable team and system, and a front office in denial. We're officially what the Cubs were the last 30 years. Reinsdorf needs to go.

One (http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/222/966/WhiteSox2005_display_image.jpg?1273595478) sort of big difference

blandman
07-12-2013, 11:02 AM
One (http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/222/966/WhiteSox2005_display_image.jpg?1273595478) sort of big difference

I mean starting this year. If the plan is really to take a 100 loss roster and add a few pieces for the illusion of competition, lucking in to a division with a no chance team every five year or so...then yeah, we're on that model. It sounds like they're looking around for now players instead of future core players. Which is not only a really bad idea, but it makes them look like complete morons.

Tragg
07-12-2013, 11:14 AM
I mean starting this year. If the plan is really to take a 100 loss roster and add a few pieces for the illusion of competition, lucking in to a division with a no chance team every five year or so...then yeah, we're on that model. It sounds like they're looking around for now players instead of future core players. Which is not only a really bad idea, but it makes them look like complete morons.

Hopefully he's talking about ready now, impact guys. And when he can't get those guys, he lowers his price to impact guys, ready later. We don't need any more Dannny Richars or Zack Stewarts on this squad.

Irishsox1
07-12-2013, 11:14 AM
http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/rocknrolla2/StarskyandHutch-DoIt_zps2ec6f6f5.jpg (http://s975.photobucket.com/user/rocknrolla2/media/StarskyandHutch-DoIt_zps2ec6f6f5.jpg.html)

SCCWS
07-12-2013, 11:22 AM
I mean starting this year. If the plan is really to take a 100 loss roster and add a few pieces for the illusion of competition, lucking in to a division with a no chance team every five year or so...then yeah, we're on that model. It sounds like they're looking around for now players instead of future core players. Which is not only a really bad idea, but it makes them look like complete morons.

Why not wait and see the first part of the plan take effect before jumping. What "sounds to you" may not be what is really happening.

blandman
07-12-2013, 11:47 AM
Why not wait and see the first part of the plan take effect before jumping. What "sounds to you" may not be what is really happening.

This attitude is exactly why we've got a 100 loss team. Bad moves abound and no one wants to rock the boat. "No, keep trying, we can't take the rebuild". But you can take another 90 year championship drought? Jesus.

blandman
07-12-2013, 11:49 AM
Hopefully he's talking about ready now, impact guys. And when he can't get those guys, he lowers his price to impact guys, ready later. We don't need any more Dannny Richars or Zack Stewarts on this squad.

Randall Delgado would fit that last mold.

dickallen15
07-12-2013, 11:57 AM
This attitude is exactly why we've got a 100 loss team. Bad moves abound and no one wants to rock the boat. "No, keep trying, we can't take the rebuild". But you can take another 90 year championship drought? Jesus.
You have mentioned 100 losses quite often. How about a wager?

Tragg
07-12-2013, 11:59 AM
Randall Delgado would fit that last mold.

Indeed.

kittle42
07-12-2013, 12:37 PM
This attitude is exactly why we've got a 100 loss team. Bad moves abound and no one wants to rock the boat. "No, keep trying, we can't take the rebuild". But you can take another 90 year championship drought? Jesus.

Have to agree here.

kittle42
07-12-2013, 12:38 PM
You have mentioned 100 losses quite often. How about a wager?

They're on pace for 96. A fire sale might easily bring 100. It would be a close bet. Hell, I think I'd take the 100 right now.

delben91
07-12-2013, 12:40 PM
I mean starting this year. If the plan is really to take a 100 loss roster and add a few pieces for the illusion of competition, lucking in to a division with a no chance team every five year or so...then yeah, we're on that model. It sounds like they're looking around for now players instead of future core players. Which is not only a really bad idea, but it makes them look like complete morons.

I don't know, maybe we should wait and see what trades actually happen and what players the Sox get in return before determining the whole organization is clueless based on twitter rumors.

Maybe they'll turn out to be complete morons, but I'm going to wait for them to actually make some moves (or not make them) before I deliver that verdict.

:dunno:

DSpivack
07-12-2013, 12:44 PM
I don't know, maybe we should wait and see what trades actually happen and what players the Sox get in return before determining the whole organization is clueless based on twitter rumors.

Maybe they'll turn out to be complete morons, but I'm going to wait for them to actually make some moves (or not make them) before I deliver that verdict.

:dunno:

The organization isn't clueless because of twitter rumors, but the team's current level performance and other organizational issues as discussed in other threads (from lack of minor league talent to quality of gameday operations).

kittle42
07-12-2013, 01:02 PM
The organization isn't clueless because of twitter rumors, but the team's current level performance and other organizational issues as discussed in other threads (from lack of minor league talent to quality of gameday operations).

To delben's defense, let's see what trades net us this time around. I don't have much confidence, but I am still optimistic.

SCCWS
07-12-2013, 01:54 PM
This attitude is exactly why we've got a 100 loss team. Bad moves abound and no one wants to rock the boat. "No, keep trying, we can't take the rebuild". But you can take another 90 year championship drought? Jesus.

Hahn cannot be blamed for the problems he inherited. Since the trading period is just starting up, maybe we should wait and judge him 6 months from now. At least we would have an idea of what direction he is hoping to go. If he trades Rios for a great AA prospect, we will not know if it is a good trade for maybe 2-3 years. If you think this mess is a quick fix, you are dreaming. Don't judge media speculation as to what he is or will do. Wait for the actual trade to happen.

Foulke You
07-12-2013, 02:26 PM
I don't know, maybe we should wait and see what trades actually happen and what players the Sox get in return before determining the whole organization is clueless based on twitter rumors.

Maybe they'll turn out to be complete morons, but I'm going to wait for them to actually make some moves (or not make them) before I deliver that verdict.

:dunno:
That is way too level headed of a thought process to have around here. It's much better to condemn a trade that hasn't happened based upon a random Twitter nugget.

RCWHITESOX
07-12-2013, 06:58 PM
Randall Delgado would fit that last mold.

Why not wait and give Hahn a chance to see what the Sox get before trying to read his mind and believing every negative article you read over the always believable internet. Hahn is the GM and I don't care about past decisions.

blandman
07-12-2013, 07:22 PM
I'm not going to give the guy that was happy thinking a lineup/defense that included players with no spot on a legit MLB bench like Viciedo and Flowers would compete in any capacity, any sort of slack. The only way I can rationalize that is that he was purposely trying to tank the team so he could rebuild. If that's not the case, then he's easily the worst general manager in baseball, probably in the last few decades. It's a special kind of baseball ineptitude to see players missing so many pieces and thinking something could happen. I cannot think of a single instance in the last 30 years where players (plural!) were so highly touted by an organization when they were so obviously lacking in ability, both to scouts and other execs as well as with pretty much any fan with eyes.

dickallen15
07-12-2013, 10:09 PM
I'm not going to give the guy that was happy thinking a lineup/defense that included players with no spot on a legit MLB bench like Viciedo and Flowers would compete in any capacity, any sort of slack. The only way I can rationalize that is that he was purposely trying to tank the team so he could rebuild. If that's not the case, then he's easily the worst general manager in baseball, probably in the last few decades. It's a special kind of baseball ineptitude to see players missing so many pieces and thinking something could happen. I cannot think of a single instance in the last 30 years where players (plural!) were so highly touted by an organization when they were so obviously lacking in ability, both to scouts and other execs as well as with pretty much any fan with eyes.

Considering you thought Rondon was going to be a dominating closer and the Tigers would set a record for the best record of all time( they could tie if they go 65-5), and your well known call about DRose, ripping anyone's player judgement is something you really shouldn't do.

soxfanreggie
07-13-2013, 12:46 AM
Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN2h (https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/355630558019190785)
Diamondbacks are among the teams talking about Jake Peavy, and CWS have had scouts on hand at Arizona games; they've seen Randall Delgado.

I'm for trading Peavy. As far as 100 losses, it's possible by I think it will be 95 even selling off a few more guys.

blandman
07-13-2013, 01:20 AM
Considering you thought Rondon was going to be a dominating closer and the Tigers would set a record for the best record of all time( they could tie if they go 65-5), and your well known call about DRose, ripping anyone's player judgement is something you really shouldn't do.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not think the Tigers WOULD set the record, I said they COULD. I didn't say Rondon WOULD be a dominating closer either or that he was one of the greatest prospects in the game (which you've also accused me of). How many times do I have to correct you. This is getting to be slander.

dickallen15
07-13-2013, 07:22 AM
Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not think the Tigers WOULD set the record, I said they COULD. I didn't say Rondon WOULD be a dominating closer either or that he was one of the greatest prospects in the game (which you've also accused me of). How many times do I have to correct you. This is getting to be slander.

Yes, and you were just as wrong as anyone who thought the Sox would contend. You went on and on about Rondon. You constantly tell everyone what scouts say but totally ignored what they said when the Tigers said last winter Rondon would be their closer. They said he could throw one pitch for a strike and would be a disaster. Guess what, he throws one pitch for a strike. He also has packed on 85 pounds since he was signed 4 years ago.

Again, why don't you bet me about the 100 losses you thin the Sox will have this year?

blandman
07-13-2013, 09:55 AM
Yes, and you were just as wrong as anyone who thought the Sox would contend. You went on and on about Rondon. You constantly tell everyone what scouts say but totally ignored what they said when the Tigers said last winter Rondon would be their closer. They said he could throw one pitch for a strike and would be a disaster. Guess what, he throws one pitch for a strike. He also has packed on 85 pounds since he was signed 4 years ago.

Again, why don't you bet me about the 100 losses you thin the Sox will have this year?

I'm not going to act like I don't think Rondon will eventually be a good closer, his stuff is top notch for a reliever. He does just need to harness it. But my point (which you missed) was that he was one option at closer, the other being easily trading for an elite one as necessary as they have the assets to do so at any point. My point on how good the Tigers could be wasn't to state that they would win 117 games, it was that they could win that many, and we could lose 100 (which now seems likely), so any talk of competing was something that should be laughed at heartily.

I don't have a problem doing bets on here, but I really don't want to bet on the White Sox losing, even if I know they will. It would feel wrong.

Tragg
07-13-2013, 10:45 AM
Didn't you suggest that the Sox trade Crede, Garland and someone else for Weaver the First, back in the day? It's not all stuff.

soxfanreggie
07-13-2013, 10:50 AM
Yes, and you were just as wrong as anyone who thought the Sox would contend. You went on and on about Rondon. You constantly tell everyone what scouts say but totally ignored what they said when the Tigers said last winter Rondon would be their closer. They said he could throw one pitch for a strike and would be a disaster. Guess what, he throws one pitch for a strike. He also has packed on 85 pounds since he was signed 4 years ago.

Again, why don't you bet me about the 100 losses you thin the Sox will have this year?

Packing on 85 pounds...closer...anyone else have visions of Bobby Jenks reading this?

If we're trading Rios, we might as well trade Peavy and take the near $30 million in salary savings to invest for the future. If you're giving up one of your best offensive players and not going to bring in some FAs, why keep Peavy unless you think what we'll put together in 2014 is a contender.

blandman
07-13-2013, 10:56 AM
Didn't you suggest that the Sox trade Crede, Garland and someone else for Weaver the First, back in the day? It's not all stuff.

No.

TDog
07-13-2013, 02:58 PM
Hopefully he's talking about ready now, impact guys. And when he can't get those guys, he lowers his price to impact guys, ready later. We don't need any more Dannny Richars or Zack Stewarts on this squad.

The problem is that if you are trading veterans at the deadline to contenders, you are unlikely to get impact players in return. It really doesn't matter how good a GM you are at that point. The trade value is higher in the offseason, although you might find someone who has fallen out of favor with most talent evaluators who turns out to be a surprise. You can only hope Jacobs fits into that category. Danny Richars didn't. Zach Stewart didn't, although he appeared he might after one great game against the Twins.

And of course, if you trade your veterans for players who are two, three, four years away from helping your team, you are going to lose more games this year (and next if you don't make upgrades in the offseason, which you probably could have made regardless) than if you had not traded your veterans.

kittle42
07-13-2013, 05:36 PM
Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not think the Tigers WOULD set the record, I said they COULD. I didn't say Rondon WOULD be a dominating closer either or that he was one of the greatest prospects in the game (which you've also accused me of). How many times do I have to correct you. This is getting to be slander.

One could say *anything* "could" happen and always be right. The world *could* end after I type this sentence. Oh, it didn't, but I was right!

Slander? Do you even know the definition?

soxfanreggie
07-13-2013, 05:59 PM
One could say *anything* "could" happen and always be right. The world *could* end after I type this sentence. Oh, it didn't, but I was right!

Slander? Do you even know the definition?

I think he means libel, but gentlemen, can we turn our focus to the future moves the Sox will be making to try and improve our future.

Mr. Jinx
07-13-2013, 05:59 PM
Packing on 85 pounds...closer...anyone else have visions of Bobby Jenks reading this?

If we're trading Rios, we might as well trade Peavy and take the near $30 million in salary savings to invest for the future. If you're giving up one of your best offensive players and not going to bring in some FAs, why keep Peavy unless you think what we'll put together in 2014 is a contender.

If there's one thing I have learned as a Sox fan, it is that payroll and revenues have little to no correlation on this team no matter what Kenny Williams says.

blandman
07-13-2013, 08:35 PM
One could say *anything* "could" happen and always be right. The world *could* end after I type this sentence. Oh, it didn't, but I was right!

Slander? Do you even know the definition?

Yeah but I wasn't championing the argument like it was going to happen. I said it was possible, so thinking we were going to compete with them was laughable. Our best outcome was worse than their worst outcome. FWIW, my BEST outcome for us was in the 75 win range.

soxfanreggie
07-14-2013, 07:17 AM
If there's one thing I have learned as a Sox fan, it is that payroll and revenues have little to no correlation on this team no matter what Kenny Williams says.

I was hoping more like we'd drop payroll in 2014 to give an extra $10-15 mil in 2015. That or throwing extra $$$ at Int'l guys or adding a year or two to some contracts.

Maybe Floyd can be signed on the cheap to try for the 5th starter role. If Peavy is traded, we'll have an opening and not sure if we'll have anybody in the system then to try as a starter.

Wedema
07-14-2013, 02:16 PM
I was hoping more like we'd drop payroll in 2014 to give an extra $10-15 mil in 2015. That or throwing extra $$$ at Int'l guys or adding a year or two to some contracts.

Maybe Floyd can be signed on the cheap to try for the 5th starter role. If Peavy is traded, we'll have an opening and not sure if we'll have anybody in the system then to try as a starter.


No way do they bring Floyd back as Johnson seems ready to go.

Tragg
07-14-2013, 03:38 PM
The problem is that if you are trading veterans at the deadline to contenders, you are unlikely to get impact players in return. It really doesn't matter how good a GM you are at that point. The trade value is higher in the offseason, although you might find someone who has fallen out of favor with most talent evaluators who turns out to be a surprise. You can only hope Jacobs fits into that category. Danny Richars didn't. Zach Stewart didn't, although he appeared he might after one great game against the Twins.

And of course, if you trade your veterans for players who are two, three, four years away from helping your team, you are going to lose more games this year (and next if you don't make upgrades in the offseason, which you probably could have made regardless) than if you had not traded your veterans.
Then so be it. Get players with upside. We should be scouting Arizona's farm clubs, not the ML club for some failed prospect in the back of their pen. I would prefer we not do any deals with teams, like Arizona, that are friends with Kenny anyway. We've done enough give-aways.
Looks like Peavy had a decent rehab start. 1 run over 5 innings, albeit a sturdy 90 pitches.

Domeshot17
07-14-2013, 04:37 PM
I would not be opposed to getting Randall Delgado back. Its hard to call a 23 year old kid with a 3.90 ERA and a 6:1 K:BB Ratio a bust....He is a solid young pitcher and I think would be a good Cooper Project.

For those of you clamoring for a quick rebuild, starting with Sale-Delgado and then hoping some of the mid rotation prospects we have like Johnson and Beck work out, along with back end acceptable pitchers like Quintana and Santiago, its a good way to go. It is cost effective and lets you use money and other areas to rebuild the offense.

Tragg
07-14-2013, 05:56 PM
I would not be opposed to getting Randall Delgado back. Its hard to call a 23 year old kid with a 3.90 ERA and a 6:1 K:BB Ratio a bust....He is a solid young pitcher and I think would be a good Cooper Project.

For those of you clamoring for a quick rebuild, starting with Sale-Delgado and then hoping some of the mid rotation prospects we have like Johnson and Beck work out, along with back end acceptable pitchers like Quintana and Santiago, its a good way to go. It is cost effective and lets you use money and other areas to rebuild the offense.

If you want Delgado, you trade one of our busted prospects for him. Not a real trading chit.

Domeshot17
07-14-2013, 07:24 PM
If you want Delgado, you trade one of our busted prospects for him. Not a real trading chit.

But why would AZ trade a prospect who has performed well in limited action in the bigs? He has always been more about the projection than what his early stats will say, a young pitcher expected to grow into a number 2 roll.

You know a pitcher who had that same kind of background, one you would easily just write off...... Freaking Johan Santana.

Delgado is not a bust, and AZ is not trading him to us for a busted prospect, because, he is not a busted prospect. This not a Simon Castro or Nestor Molina. This is a 23 year old who has pitched reasonably well in the bigs.

You do not trade Peavy for Delgado straight up, but if you could get a package like Delgado Matt Davidson and Chris Owings or something with Delgado and Stryker Trahan, yah, you have a winner and its a great deal.

Tragg
07-14-2013, 10:03 PM
He's pitched pretty poorly with Arizona, actually. He did okay with Atlanta for 7 games.
But you're right, busted is premature. As part of a package, perhaps. Maybe we can get back the 2nd half of the Jackson trade (was than a horrendous trade, or what). I just don't want any giveaways out of Hahn.