The 2024 Trade Deadline

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

You could definitely do that.  However, I’d use Crochet as an opener until the playoffs (keep him on a regular regimen) and then unleash him in October.  Two NL GMs with interest in him seemed to imply they’d do the same thing.

Starter and then reliever and then back to starter. Risky risky risky. 

[Bemorewins]

29 minutes ago, Rbiggs2525 said:

It doesn’t make sense. Especially the pitching part. Right now we have 27 million committed to next year’s contracts. Yes with Arbitration and other variables it’s between 50-75 million. That leaves you at least 50 million to fill pitching needs. We do not need one position player filled. There is plenty of room on the roster for Mayo and Basallo. James McCann and Mountcastle will be replaced.

It makes sense to me for multiple reasons.

1) IMO we do not have the requisite pitching talent in order to matchup favorably against the leagues best in a 7 game series in October. That needs to change.

2) We don’t need extra offense IMO. Nor a back up catcher. We will be fine offensively if we don’t have one considering without both we are number one in the sport.

3) We could resign Burnes with that 50 million (not sure where you are getting that number). But so many here believe it will be a bad deal. And having another #1 in house protects us from having to be leveraged against signing him.

[Greg Pappas]

1 hour ago, justD said:

I haven't read enough of the thread to know if this has already been discussed and panned, but why not consider trading for Crochet to use as a middle relief/setup guy this season, then keep him for next year as a starter? Solves the innings issue and shores up next year's rotation should we lose Burnes. 

Don't flame me too badly.  Simply getting someone like Tanner Scott to fill that void will make me pull my hair out, and in my opinion, bullpen woes are at least an equal (if not greater?) concern to starting pitching right now.

It's true that this has been discussed, and there are differing schools of thought.  Some, like myself, feel that the resources required in a Crochet deal, might be better served addressing a more impactful need for 2024: a ToR starter.  As a starter beginning next season, it's likely Crochet's impact will be higher as a strong ToR starter through the final two years of control.  In the meantime, there are quite a few very solid veteran late inning relievers that we could deal for in order to satisfy that need, and that wouldn't require near the cost of a Crochet.

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Starter and then reliever and then back to starter. Risky risky risky. 

If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?

[RZNJ]

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?

You’re actually making the most sense of just about anyone on here.   Hate to say it.  Lol

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?

It’s just the up and down roles. I agree the opener aspect is the best way to go(to keep him on routine) but you are going to go from pitching 1-3 innings and then hoping he can go 5-6 again, when he is already likely to wear down because of the total workload.

It’s all a big risk. I mean, there is a reason he has whatever deal with the WS he has and that if they went against that, he wanted an extension. Even he understands that it’s a risk.

[Sports Guy]

15 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?

Btw, i understand what he could mean to the team. He could put a ring on our fingers if he can be healthy and be there where and when we need him in October. 
 

That’s the conundrum.

[Birdland in NC]

I’ll take them all. Skubal, Crochet, and Mason Miller. At least.  

[HowAboutThat]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yea but they struck OUT early with Fuji!

 

Yes, they did

(FTFY)

Edited July 8 by HowAboutThat

[Rbiggs2525]

6 minutes ago, Birdland in NC said:

I’ll take them all. Skubal, Crochet, and Mason Miller. At least.  

Tell me the cost and I would probably sign up. What about you Qauntrill, Scherzer and Yates and you got to keep all top 4 prospects?

[Greg Pappas]

IMHO it's not about whether Crochet is an "opener" or a reliever, it's the innings.  He's never thrown more than 65 innings (at college in 2019) in his entire college or pro career and stands at 105.1 today.  Let that sink in.  On top of that, there is Crochet's TJ surgery, where he missed all of 2022 and had multiple stints on the IL in 2023 as he was recovering, tossing a total of 25 IP.

Does any of this mean he cannot throw double (130 IP) or triple (195 IP) his prior max?  No one can say for certain, but I'd think any reasonable person would agree that, at the very least, it's a far riskier proposition for someone like Crochet than a pitcher who has been a starter and has thrown 150+ IP before. 

So, to recap:

• The most innings he's ever thrown was 65 IP in college (2019)
• After throwing 54 innings of relief for the White Sox in 2021, he missed all of 2022 with Tommy John surgery
• He followed up in 2023 by throwing a total of 25 innings of relief, as he dealt with a couple of IL stints recovering from TJ
• His first ever pro start came this season and he's been dynamite through 105.1 IP

Elias and Sig are well aware of the risks and it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Edited July 8 by Greg Pappas

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Btw, i understand what he could mean to the team. He could put a ring on our fingers if he can be healthy and be there where and when we need him in October. 
 

That’s the conundrum.

I totally get it.  It’s a huge risk vs. reward situation, but getting someone like him (if he’s still strong) or Skubal could make a major difference come October for you guys over the next three seasons.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

58 minutes ago, Rbiggs2525 said:

Tell me the cost and I would probably sign up. What about you Qauntrill, Scherzer and Yates and you got to keep all top 4 prospects?

 I like this idea better, but I am curious to what it would take to secure Mason Miller.

[chipster22]

On close examination of Kjerstad today (July 7), I hope he is not part of any trade package. This kid is a bull, with power potential that is off the charts.  He runs surprisingly well and that throw to the plate from left was very impressive, if a bit high. I can see him planted in left field for a long time, perhaps in a platoon with Hays the rest of the year, but eventually full time if he proves able to hit southpaws.

[Bemorewins]

7 hours ago, Rbiggs2525 said:

Tell me the cost and I would probably sign up. What about you Qauntrill, Scherzer and Yates and you got to keep all top 4 prospects?

I get that everybody wants the best of both worlds.

But 2 questions: 1) What would be the plan for the pitching next year if we just went the rental/shortest term route?

2) Is Quantrill a guy that you trust making postseason starts? If so, what gives you confidence in him?