White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
And away we go...

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:55 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 8,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77
Question: what is the purpose of this type of move? I'm not passing judgement on the transaction....I don't know anything about Tocci. I'm just curious about why select a player that you just flip for cash?

Again, I'm not criticizing the move, I'm just curious as to why such a trade would take place.....as opposed to selecting someone they were interested in keeping in the organization.
My only guess is that our Rule 5 slot was much higher than the slot the Rangers had, and the Rangers didnít want to risk losing the player?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and letís fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 12-14-2017, 02:33 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
Probably the same reason the Phillies did it with Burdi one pick earlier. The Pirates contacted them and asked if they would select Burdi. The Pirates wanted him but knew the Sox would take him and he would not be available. So they asked the Phillies to pick him and made a deal with them. Assume that the Rangers wanted this guy and called around to find out who would be willing to take him with an early pick (perhaps they knew or suspected someone else ahead of them wanted him) and made an offer. Doesn't benefit the Sox a lot but doesn't cause any harm to take the money and create a little good feeling between a potential trade partner of the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
Sounds like the Rangers wanted Tocci (and Sox didn't) and were afraid he would be off the board by the time their draft slot came up so they essentially paid the Sox to take Tocci for the Rangers (Sox had a higher pick in the draft than the Rangers). Just a guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
My only guess is that our Rule 5 slot was much higher than the slot the Rangers had, and the Rangers didnít want to risk losing the player?
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 12-14-2017, 06:50 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 14,549
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
Imagine that. I guess the front office might know a wee bit more about their organization than the commenters in the balcony.
No one picked them. We'll see what they do with all of the 40 man room now.
357-453

Last edited by Tragg; 12-14-2017 at 07:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 12-14-2017, 10:05 PM
GoSox2K3 GoSox2K3 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
No one picked them. We'll see what they do with all of the 40 man room now.
357-453
Yes, Tim McCarver, that's how it works. Rick Hahn made a call about who to leave unprotected and he was right - no one picked them.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:10 PM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is online now
Chief Skeptic and 2015 Preseason Predictions Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSox2K3 View Post
I was told on WSI that Jordan Guerrero, Tito Polo, and perhaps others were as good as GONE thanks to Rick Hahn's incompetence when it comes to the 40-man roster.
Guerrero was on the top of some lists of draft-eligible players.

I'm happy the Sox didn't lose anyone, but the Sox had several free spots on the 40-man, so they didn't even have to expose Guerrero, Polo, and Peter. What pissed me off is that they protected deadwood relievers (who they have already non-tendered!) instead of prospects. There was basically no downside to protecting those players.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:19 PM
XplodingScorbord XplodingScorbord is online now
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Just off the DFW flight path
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
Guerrero was on the top of some lists of draft-eligible players.

I'm happy the Sox didn't lose anyone, but the Sox had several free spots on the 40-man, so they didn't even have to expose Guerrero, Polo, and Peter. What pissed me off is that they protected deadwood relievers (who they have already non-tendered!) instead of prospects. There was basically no downside to protecting those players.
Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, there was a downside to protecting those players that we don't know about because we don't work at the top level of the White Sox front office.
__________________
**Xploding Scorbord**
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:30 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 8,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica
Guerrero was on the top of some lists of draft-eligible players.

I'm happy the Sox didn't lose anyone, but the Sox had several free spots on the 40-man, so they didn't even have to expose Guerrero, Polo, and Peter. What pissed me off is that they protected deadwood relievers (who they have already non-tendered!) instead of prospects. There was basically no downside to protecting those players.
We gain an extra year of team control on all those players by not having to use an option year.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:17 AM
skobabe8's Avatar
skobabe8 skobabe8 is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dyer, IN
Posts: 6,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XplodingScorbord View Post
Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, there was a downside to protecting those players that we don't know about because we don't work at the top level of the White Sox front office.
Impossible!
__________________



www.twitter.com/jasonrosko
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old Yesterday, 02:51 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XplodingScorbord View Post
Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, there was a downside to protecting those players that we don't know about because we don't work at the top level of the White Sox front office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
We gain an extra year of team control on all those players by not having to use an option year.
Thanks for the info. This sheds light on why they chose to protect or not protect who they did.

Wow, imagine that. It's not just that Rick Hahn & Co. are complete bumbling fools who should take some advice from fans on WSI!
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old Today, 12:36 AM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - South Loop
Posts: 4,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
Thanks for the info. This sheds light on why they chose to protect or not protect who they did.

Wow, imagine that. It's not just that Rick Hahn & Co. are complete bumbling fools who should take some advice from fans on WSI!
They pretty much knew that those kids were not near major league ready, thus leaving them unprotected.
__________________
<a href=http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256 target=_blank>http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...achmentid=3256</a>

March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old Today, 08:23 AM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is online now
Chief Skeptic and 2015 Preseason Predictions Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
We gain an extra year of team control on all those players by not having to use an option year.
That would be foolish. Unless the players have very high ceilings, in which case there's no debating whether to protect them, you don't worry about keeping them for seven years. You worry about losing their first six.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old Today, 08:57 AM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
They pretty much knew that those kids were not near major league ready, thus leaving them unprotected.
Rule 5 guys rarely are. The only one that surprises me is Guerrero. Lefty pitchers are hard to find. I'm surprised someone didn't stash him at the bottom of their bullpen. It makes me wonder whether the Sox and everyone considers him to ever be major league quality.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old Today, 09:34 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,071
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
That would be foolish. Unless the players have very high ceilings, in which case there's no debating whether to protect them, you don't worry about keeping them for seven years. You worry about losing their first six.
That's not the main reason. That's just an added side benefit.

The main reason for leaving them unprotected is because they Sox had more valuable players and prospects who did need protection on the 40-man roster. And they concluded - correctly, as events have shown - that the unprotected players would not be added to the 25-man roster of another team for all of the 2018 season.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old Today, 03:00 PM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is online now
Chief Skeptic and 2015 Preseason Predictions Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
That's not the main reason. That's just an added side benefit.

The main reason for leaving them unprotected is because they Sox had more valuable players and prospects who did need protection on the 40-man roster.
That's patently false. They protected a number of aging relievers who they have since non-tendered. They could have protected three more players on the 40-man without blinking.

It is lucky that they didn't lose anyone, so I'll give Hahn credit for judging the market, but the point is it's a risk the Sox didn't need to take.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old Today, 04:50 PM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,071
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
That's patently false. They protected a number of aging relievers who they have since non-tendered. They could have protected three more players on the 40-man without blinking.

It is lucky that they didn't lose anyone, so I'll give Hahn credit for judging the market, but the point is it's a risk the Sox didn't need to take.
And they may yet acquire additional prospects who need protection on the 40-man roster, such as might be acquired if they dealt Abreu or Avi. If so, then prospects you didnít have to protect in the first place, like Guerrero or Peter or Walsh, would have to be outrighted back off the 40-man roster, and would be free agents and able to sign anywhere.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (3 members and 1 guests)
jdm2662, JoJo, skobabe8
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.