Speaker 1: Socks on thirty fifth is next.
Speaker 2: Doors open on the left.
Speaker 1: How's it going, everybody? This is your host, Duke Colfin
Speaker 1: and welcome to the Socks on thirty fifth podcast. We
Speaker 1: are back with another exciting episode covering yours Cargo White Sox.
Speaker 1: I am joined this week by Michael Swarow, Jordan Lazowski,
Speaker 1: Nick Gower. Two of these guys are here all the time.
Speaker 1: Michael's here.
Speaker 3: Have you been on the show, Michael, Yeah, I think
Speaker 3: it's like the twentieth time now that this is my
Speaker 3: first time on the show. For if we're keeping track,
Speaker 3: I gotta go back and like count exactly how many
Speaker 3: times it's been, But it's got.
Speaker 1: To be in the twenties by now. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: there's a only there's only twenty first impression. So we're
Speaker 1: glad you're here to make the twentieth gentlemen. Obviously with
Speaker 1: the Astros winning the series, Uh, we couldn't let him sleep?
Speaker 1: When we're talking Mark Kammas shows, how couldn't let him sleep?
Speaker 1: What again? How we feeling about the White Sox this weekend? Guys?
Speaker 2: Still fine? Like, I don't know, it was a dumb game.
Speaker 2: I really hated this weekend series. To be honest with you,
Speaker 2: Sunday was nice. Friday everyone called me dramatic from my
Speaker 2: thought that they if the season doesn't go the way
Speaker 2: they want, they might really regret that game. We're gonna
Speaker 2: have to get into that totally just yet, because you
Speaker 2: just asked me how I'm doing, But I'm doing good
Speaker 2: things for asking Duke.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, same here. I mean I kind of agree
Speaker 4: with Jordan. Other than today's game. Obviously, it was a
Speaker 4: bit of a tough series to watch, but I'm doing well.
Speaker 4: And it's kind of interesting because I remember on one
Speaker 4: of our old episodes, Jordan had like it was like
Speaker 4: a fun fact or something, but he was like he
Speaker 4: had never been to a concert.
Speaker 2: That was like his fact.
Speaker 4: And the reason I bring that up is because I
Speaker 4: just finished a stretch where I went to five concerts
Speaker 4: in six weeks. I'm like, I'm done with it now, Like,
Speaker 4: but it's kind of funny. I've thought about Jordan. When
Speaker 4: I realized, I was like, oh, that's like we couldn't
Speaker 4: be more different in that regard.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm going to one in November Zach ground Band.
Speaker 2: I'm a huge country fan, so I'm looking forward to that.
Speaker 2: But that'll be like number three.
Speaker 1: So okay, I got a ways to go.
Speaker 3: You're getting that counts on a good show.
Speaker 1: I've been to one of his concerts.
Speaker 2: I have heard that so fun. I have heard that
Speaker 2: they definitely put on a good show, so I'm very
Speaker 2: excited for it. So they're one of my favorites.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm doing good as well. Uh, no concerts on
Speaker 3: my agenda. I am going to be at the SOXS
Speaker 3: game tomorrow though, And uh, I think I do have
Speaker 3: to try one of those new sushi push pops that
Speaker 3: they're apparently like. I was sketched out about them at first,
Speaker 3: but everyone's saying they're really good. So I'm like, all right,
Speaker 3: now I have to try one. And I think there's
Speaker 3: one like two sections away for where I'm gonna be sitting,
Speaker 3: So I have to and I will let you guys
Speaker 3: know how they are.
Speaker 1: Okay, So as a genuine and you know, I'm sorry
Speaker 1: if this is just earth chattering anybody. I'm not a
Speaker 1: big sushi guy. I don't enjoy the idea of a
Speaker 1: raw fish in any sort of way. That's really nasty
Speaker 1: food poisoning in the past. Because of that, it also
Speaker 1: doesn't surprise me that, like, I need a check from
Speaker 1: everybody right now. So Michael's obviously sushi.
Speaker 4: Guy, last big sushi guy. Nick not really only for
Speaker 4: that work, and I like kind of have to eat.
Speaker 1: It, okay, So it's it's ceremoniously split because Nick will
Speaker 1: not go out and search for sushi, but last obviously
Speaker 1: big sushi guy. Michael, you got a lot us know
Speaker 1: how it is, because yeah, I mean you hear sushi
Speaker 1: push pop and red Flags pop in your head. It's
Speaker 1: it's catchy, but a push pop with sushi. It's like
Speaker 1: I don't know, I thought about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was sketched out at first, but like every
Speaker 3: review comes like they're like saying like this has like
Speaker 3: no business being as good as it is. I think
Speaker 3: they're I don't think these are raw fish. I think
Speaker 3: it's like ones like imitation crab, the others shrimp Temporal,
Speaker 3: both of which are like cooked seafood. So I think
Speaker 3: that helps a little bit. Still a weird concept, but
Speaker 3: I feel like I just have to try some country.
Speaker 2: Music and sushi. Michael, you and I have more in
Speaker 2: common than I thought. All right, now we have to
Speaker 2: go to a concert together. I know that's what it
Speaker 2: sounds like.
Speaker 1: I'm so down for that. Well, as a non Senshian
Speaker 1: jar and country fan, I'll just stick to Luke Holmb's so.
Speaker 2: That's fine too. I'll accept that.
Speaker 1: Well anyway, as riveting as sushi and country music is together.
Speaker 1: We've got quite a bit to cover in this episode,
Speaker 1: but before we get started, be sure subscribe to the
Speaker 1: podcast on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and anywhere else to your podcast.
Speaker 1: Also sure to check out the website socks on thirtyfifth
Speaker 1: dot com, as well as following us on Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and Instagram at sos on thirty fifth and YouTube as well,
Speaker 1: where we already have some questions going White Sox O
Speaker 1: three says, good afternoon, boys. It is eight pm here,
Speaker 1: so maybe the time's a little bit off, but I
Speaker 1: do appreciate it anyway. We we love our fans regardless. So,
Speaker 1: as I kind of alluded to in the intro, White
Speaker 1: Sox struggled against the Astros the sixth inning. I don't
Speaker 1: think I need to say anything more than that, but
Speaker 1: it felt like it was just doomed. Every single time
Speaker 1: we would we would start pitching in the six and
Speaker 1: we saw the absolute worst of it over the weekend
Speaker 1: Is this something that's been a common threat throughout the season.
Speaker 1: Maybe not, but there have been points in the season,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, where I feel like we have hit
Speaker 1: that one snag in the line and really let it
Speaker 1: affect the rest of the game for us. Did anything
Speaker 1: from these games change your guys opinion? Micha go, I'll
Speaker 1: let you kick it off because you're the host. Did
Speaker 1: anything from these games kind of like kick it off?
Speaker 1: Or you're the guest? I should say, I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 1: it's Sunday, dude, I'm just.
Speaker 2: Taking your job.
Speaker 1: What's that? That's not apparently I'm taking your job now, Well,
Speaker 1: it'd be crazy for a first time guess to take
Speaker 1: my job. But what are your takeaways from this weekend?
Speaker 1: Obviously it's it's something we've seen before. It's not the
Speaker 1: first time something like this has happened. But how how
Speaker 1: dire does losing two out of three to the Astros feel?
Speaker 3: I mean, really not that dire because Cleveland just got
Speaker 3: swept and so after this series we still gained a
Speaker 3: game on them. It also just kind of more than
Speaker 3: anything confirmed like my concerns about this team, like we
Speaker 3: need more pitching, we need to add some pitching to
Speaker 3: this team. So that's really where I'm at, is like
Speaker 3: we're still in the playoff on that hasn't changed, but
Speaker 3: like bolster the bolster, the rotation gets some more reliable
Speaker 3: arms so that we don't have to throw sy Anthy
Speaker 3: Tomingas out there in any important innings anymore.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: But in general, like the series kind of sucked. But
Speaker 3: I'm not like overreacting to Like I'm not saying like, oh,
Speaker 3: like we can't be buyers anymore, Like my my opinion
Speaker 3: hasn't really changed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my biggest thing from the week is okay, and
Speaker 2: I put out what everyone not everyone. A lot of
Speaker 2: people called it dramatic, where I'm like, and I even
Speaker 2: called it dramatic, like losing a five to nothing leading
Speaker 2: the sixth inning at what twelve outs to get like
Speaker 2: you're gonna regret that at some point the season, even
Speaker 2: if it all goes well, and especially if it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Everyone's like, oh, that's it's dramatic. It's just one game.
Speaker 2: They all mean the same like yes, but no, because
Speaker 2: Cleveland lost that day too, So that for me is like,
Speaker 2: all right, you were in the driver's seat, you gave
Speaker 2: up the driver's seat you crashed the car practically, and
Speaker 2: it was a chance to pick up a game, right Like,
Speaker 2: it kept putting pressure on, like you had to pick
Speaker 2: up something this weekend, especially if Cleveland wasn't gonna win
Speaker 2: a ball game. You can't go and get swept when
Speaker 2: your opponent gets swept, your division rival opponent gets swept.
Speaker 2: That was the frustration for me, and I think even
Speaker 2: Venable kind of said it too, like you know that
Speaker 2: can't happen essentially, like even if they all mean the
Speaker 2: same in the grand scheme of one sixty two, like
Speaker 2: there was this division by a game or two. You
Speaker 2: look at games like this, not where you get shut out,
Speaker 2: right whatever, that that's gonna happen. That's baseball. It's when
Speaker 2: you just melt down. You had the game practically on
Speaker 2: ice at that point at five nothing and you can
Speaker 2: finish it off. Does it change much? No, realistically confirms
Speaker 2: like Michael said, some of the issues. But it's just
Speaker 2: more of a frustration more than anything else.
Speaker 4: I guess I'll say, yeah, I'm kind of in the
Speaker 4: same place as you too. I mean, Friday's game in
Speaker 4: a lot of ways felt like a fever dream in
Speaker 4: that there were like thirteen popouts by White Sox hitters.
Speaker 4: Everything was a pop up that was insane. And then
Speaker 4: on top of that the dread and sixth inning we're
Speaker 4: talking about, Like, yeah, it was a beginning for Houston.
Speaker 4: It would have been a beginning either way. But I
Speaker 4: will say, like two, I think actually three of their
Speaker 4: hits were just like chopped directly down into the ground
Speaker 4: at like fifty four miles an hours, Like there's nothing
Speaker 4: you can do when I that that is basically a
Speaker 4: free single, even if the slowest runner on the team
Speaker 4: is running. So that happened like three times the same thing.
Speaker 4: I say, Okay, like this is just not our our
Speaker 4: in a not our day or whatever. It's baseball, right,
Speaker 4: it's like playing Cleveland. That stuff always happens for Cleveland.
Speaker 4: What is more frustrating to me, and it's not the
Speaker 4: team's fault necessarily, but just the day to day consistency
Speaker 4: of the offense is so strange. Like all of July,
Speaker 4: it's been like either score eight to twelve runs or
Speaker 4: they're scoring like zero to one. And I feel that
Speaker 4: has been the case for too long now. We were
Speaker 4: talking before this game, Sunday's a game about how they
Speaker 4: hadn't hit a home run in like a week, then
Speaker 4: they hit like four or five and one game. Like again,
Speaker 4: I understand it's they don't really you can't really control
Speaker 4: some of this stuff. But at the same time, there's
Speaker 4: a lot of variance in this offense, and I would
Speaker 4: love like more consistent like four to run outputs rather
Speaker 4: than these you know, high highs and low lows that
Speaker 4: they're putting up well.
Speaker 1: And I almost wonder what the scouting report, like, what
Speaker 1: the scouting report would be for the White Sox offense
Speaker 1: and how teams handle certain pictures with certain strengths going
Speaker 1: into our lineup, because it feels like, kind of like
Speaker 1: you said, Nick, we really do come into some of
Speaker 1: these games and the offense is just ready from the go,
Speaker 1: swinging the bad hard. There was an example before in
Speaker 1: the at bat that Miguel Vargas hit a home run today.
Speaker 1: You could see off the first swing even when he missed,
Speaker 1: and like it's like, oh, Miguel's trying to take this
Speaker 1: out of the ballpark. That's at bat, like he was
Speaker 1: swinging hard, and you know that's it's not like an
Speaker 1: effort thing. It's not like a you know, like why
Speaker 1: aren't these guys trying to hit home runs every single
Speaker 1: time at the bad thing? But I almost wonder what
Speaker 1: the game plan is going into certain picture strengths. I
Speaker 1: wonder kind of what the scouting report looks like and
Speaker 1: kind of like what they're trying to emphasize on a
Speaker 1: day to day basis, because there are some days where
Speaker 1: you can tell, well, the hitting philosophy is like let's
Speaker 1: you know, let's get some home runs. Like this, this
Speaker 1: pitching rotation or this pitcher that we have on the
Speaker 1: mound to day gives up home runs. Uh, the relievers
Speaker 1: that they would likely use if we had a closer game,
Speaker 1: they strike out a lot of people, but they do
Speaker 1: give up very hittable balls, And then you know, like
Speaker 1: how do they handle teams that are specifically like weak
Speaker 1: ground ball type pitching? You know what I mean? So
Speaker 1: I almost want, like, I wonder what the philosophy that
Speaker 1: is going forward, not to try to make excuses for
Speaker 1: the lineup. Sometimes guys just you know, yeah, they have
Speaker 1: a tough day at the office. That's baseball. I also,
Speaker 1: I think last to your point about you know, watching
Speaker 1: seeing games like that and like looking back on it
Speaker 1: and then seeing where you are later in the year,
Speaker 1: once you're in like September and wondering what you could
Speaker 1: have done different. That's certainly that's a good point to have.
Speaker 1: The biggest thing is the White Sox have to realize
Speaker 1: when they when these games happen, it puts more strenuous
Speaker 1: effort on what they have to do it in September,
Speaker 1: and I think with a team that's not totally experienced
Speaker 1: of being in a playoff run, that's maybe not something
Speaker 1: they're going to totally grasp right now, but it's something
Speaker 1: they could grasp by the time it really gets to
Speaker 1: the final end. The final stretch of the year here
Speaker 1: in cleveland's really putting pressure on us.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I just and again I don't like reacting
Speaker 2: overreacting to one one game, right, And it comes off
Speaker 2: very much like that when I say what I said.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, it's like we've talked all
Speaker 2: season about the waves of changing expectations for this team,
Speaker 2: and that's that's part of the calculus here, right We're
Speaker 2: about to have a whole episode as we go through
Speaker 2: just fan questions about like buying at the deadline, and
Speaker 2: it's not like one game is going to change that
Speaker 2: a lot of people are panicing like, oh, I hate
Speaker 2: losing around the deadline. That's not You've already decided your direction,
Speaker 2: like seven days before. You know which way you're going
Speaker 2: for the most part at this point, so it's not
Speaker 2: that drastic of a change. But what it really comes
Speaker 2: down to being is you know, how often do you
Speaker 2: let your flaws get exposed? And I think that was
Speaker 2: just a clear example, like everything got exposed at the
Speaker 2: same time. It's kind of a good wake up call
Speaker 2: for probably Chris gets like, hey, if you if you're
Speaker 2: really gonna do something to help this team, everything went
Speaker 2: on display that night for you, so go figure it
Speaker 2: out from there. Kind of all series actually too, some
Speaker 2: of the starting pitching concerns, bullpen concerns because of the
Speaker 2: starting pitching concerns, and how that all kind of added
Speaker 2: up together well, And I.
Speaker 1: Think you framed that well, and Michael, I don't Michael
Speaker 1: or Nick, I'm not sure if you have a different
Speaker 1: opinion on it, but I think I don't think this
Speaker 1: changes any sort of idea of what Chris Gott's going
Speaker 1: to do with the deadline. As you said, I think
Speaker 1: he kind of has it set set in stone that
Speaker 1: any moves, any non moves he's gonna make is already
Speaker 1: pretty clear. It's just it's just a valuation at this point,
Speaker 1: you know, like kind of similar to like how before
Speaker 1: the season started, we thought this team was going to
Speaker 1: be terrible, so the evaluation was going to be who's
Speaker 1: going to be here next year? The evaluation right now
Speaker 1: is like, oh, we're really good. Who who can we
Speaker 1: realistically move? And what do we realistically need to make
Speaker 1: that final run stretch here at the end. You know.
Speaker 1: So I don't think this, I don't think this would
Speaker 1: change any sort of target or who we could possibly
Speaker 1: give up in any stretch.
Speaker 2: No, it just it just more than anything I said,
Speaker 2: it amplifies things and to reframe that exact phrase and
Speaker 2: puts a spotlight on it right like that that game
Speaker 2: was this week Like I said, this weekend was everything
Speaker 2: where it's like, hey, solidified everything we're going to talk
Speaker 2: about here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And you know, I I think Sunday shows what
Speaker 1: this what this lineup is still capable of as well,
Speaker 1: and what we can do even if there are some
Speaker 1: runs across the board, we can still make it a
Speaker 1: game that's you know, outside of reach. I mean even
Speaker 1: look at last week, I think what we scored five
Speaker 1: runs in the eighth or ninth inning of a game
Speaker 1: that we were already winning comfortably. So, like the the
Speaker 1: the guns can get turned on fast, and the offense
Speaker 1: isn't something that anybody should really be too worried about.
Speaker 1: I think we'll find a way to be able to
Speaker 1: stay competitive on a game and game basis. But makes
Speaker 1: a job a lot easier for the offense when you
Speaker 1: have the right arms on the mound throughout the entire game.
Speaker 1: So I think that's going to be still the number
Speaker 1: one priority for the White Sox. Michael, you recently wrote
Speaker 1: an article speaking of the trade deadline and kind of
Speaker 1: like looking at what we're looking at about prospects who
Speaker 1: might be available for the White Sox trade at the deadline.
Speaker 1: How did you come across coming up with these names?
Speaker 1: Do they have cool sounding names? And do they you think,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe that's something that could go towards another
Speaker 1: team marketing department? Are they twenty eight years old and
Speaker 1: they're hitting really well in double lay? How did you
Speaker 1: come up with these names?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the way that their names sound is always how
Speaker 3: I do my my prospect drinkings in case, everyone was
Speaker 3: wondering like that.
Speaker 1: Tim tim tim Elko has just the name has so
Speaker 1: much star power without even knowing what he does. Tim
Speaker 1: Elko was never part of my top thirty and never
Speaker 1: will be. No, we'll speaking that.
Speaker 3: Actually it was kind of timed up well because since
Speaker 3: the draft I have been going back and updating or
Speaker 3: getting ready for socks on thirty fifths mid season Top
Speaker 3: thirty prospect drinkings, so names are already kind of you know,
Speaker 3: fresh in my head. But it just kind of looking around,
Speaker 3: like who could teams realistically be interested in? Is like
Speaker 3: how I was looking at it, and like who, Like like,
Speaker 3: where do we have surpluses in positional depth? Does that
Speaker 3: line up with what some of these sellers might be
Speaker 3: looking for? Like specifically, we have a lot of middle
Speaker 3: and field depth, and that's something that most teams that
Speaker 3: are sellers, like they're going to be looking for shortstops,
Speaker 3: like they typically have a little more positional value. And
Speaker 3: again that's something that we have a decent amount of.
Speaker 3: So like that I highlighted that in the article. Won't
Speaker 3: give up too much so you guys can go read it.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's more just like where do we have
Speaker 3: like names that teams realistically would be interested in that
Speaker 3: actually carry some value, but like the White Sox could be.
Speaker 1: Willing to move. I guess is the easiest way to put.
Speaker 2: It, Michael, Let me ask you this on top of that, now,
Speaker 2: how much do you buyd In the most recent report,
Speaker 2: the Socks aren't willing to trade anyone inside their top
Speaker 2: ten prospects, which depending on the list might mean different
Speaker 2: guys at seven, eight, nine, to ten, whatever. But also,
Speaker 2: what do you think of the idea? And I mentioned
Speaker 2: it last episode of it seems like a lot of
Speaker 2: guys around the trade deadline are those eighteen nineteen year
Speaker 2: olds who maybe have a little bit of helium but
Speaker 2: aren't twenty one, twenty three. More importantly, the teams really
Speaker 2: look for younger prospects, especially at the trade deadline, more
Speaker 2: than anything else. Do you feel like that's a detriment
Speaker 2: to the Socks at all in terms of where they
Speaker 2: stand right now or do you still feel like, hey,
Speaker 2: they can still put together competitive packages for the deadline.
Speaker 3: I mean that they've got some names that are some
Speaker 3: guys that are that kind of fit that demographic. But
Speaker 3: if that is what sellers are looking for, then that
Speaker 3: does kind of put us a little bit behind. You know,
Speaker 3: we like recently we've been doing a little bit better
Speaker 3: at drafting you know, guys out of high school, and like,
Speaker 3: you know, we just completely overhauled our international scouting system,
Speaker 3: David Keller running it now, but we've already had several
Speaker 3: international classes in place before he even took uh took
Speaker 3: that job, so we're still a little bit behind in
Speaker 3: that department. There's been a few breakout guys in the
Speaker 3: Dominican Summer League, but like those are all like that's
Speaker 3: almost like so far away that you really don't know
Speaker 3: much about some of those guys, So I'm not sure
Speaker 3: how much trade value they'll specifically have. Most of the
Speaker 3: guys that we have, like I said, are going to
Speaker 3: be like middle and fielders and like high like between
Speaker 3: low Way and Double A, that are going to be
Speaker 3: like our primary trade ships some I mean, but like
Speaker 3: at if we're talking about like the very top of
Speaker 3: what we have available, we can put together trade pacts
Speaker 3: for anyone because those two guys that we have at
Speaker 3: the top of our of I guess if you were
Speaker 3: to rank our trade ships, it's Caleb Bonomer and Billy Carlson,
Speaker 3: both are twenty years old and younger, and both are
Speaker 3: pretty pretty unanimously considered top bunch of prospects. I mean,
Speaker 3: Bonhomer is probably a top twenty prospect at this point.
Speaker 3: Carlson I think is in the fifties right now in
Speaker 3: MLB pipeline. I know we fell off of Baseball America's list,
Speaker 3: but that's more because the injury versus he's actually playing.
Speaker 3: So like those those two guys alone can pretty much
Speaker 3: like if we're willing to move them, which is a
Speaker 3: big if, could put us in any conversation really and
Speaker 3: then we do have a good amount of depth in
Speaker 3: the system. It just depends on, like you said, if
Speaker 3: teams are looking for more those like eighteen nineteen year
Speaker 3: old like high upside, high risk guys, that might put
Speaker 3: us at a little bit of a disadvantage. We have
Speaker 3: a few guys, but it's not exactly where we're the
Speaker 3: strongest at.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so kind of taking the other side of that, Michael,
Speaker 4: are there any guys I mean, obviously you mentioned Bonhamber
Speaker 4: and Carlson, but are there any other players that you
Speaker 4: think the White Sox should essentially refuse to trade? And uh,
Speaker 4: maybe you can talk about Boston Smith here, I here
Speaker 4: feeling for it.
Speaker 1: I knew you're gonna ask me about that.
Speaker 3: My personal take is no prospect truly be untouchable, but
Speaker 3: like you gotta have, you gotta have limits on that
Speaker 3: as well, Like I'm not putting Caleb Bonmer in every
Speaker 3: single you know, trade conversation, Like, if we're gonna consider
Speaker 3: trading him, it's got to be for Like I don't
Speaker 3: even know if anyone who's been rumored to be available
Speaker 3: even fits the criteria for what we could trade him for.
Speaker 3: Like I'd be looking at like a frontline starter with
Speaker 3: at least another three years of control, Like I just
Speaker 3: don't know, Like unless maybe if the Reds decided to
Speaker 3: shop Hunter Green, like that could be a fit. But
Speaker 3: like I really don't know if there's a trade that
Speaker 3: makes sense for him Carlson, Like again, he's not quite
Speaker 3: Caleb Bomber's level, but like you still would You're not
Speaker 3: gonna trade him for a rental, you know, unless they
Speaker 3: were like adamant about getting Scooble, which I think would
Speaker 3: be the wrong decision for the White Sox. Like that,
Speaker 3: I don't think that makes sense. We'll talk about Boston
Speaker 3: Smith a little bit here because he does provide some
Speaker 3: interesting catcher depth for the White Sox currently, Like the
Speaker 3: way he's flying up the system is like, it's crazy
Speaker 3: how good he's been this year and the fact that
Speaker 3: he's playing into a position war maybe he could possibly
Speaker 3: help out the roster next year or potentially this year
Speaker 3: with how bad our catching situation has been. Maybe that
Speaker 3: does carry more value than trading. Than looking to trade him.
Speaker 3: I think that he should still be available in the
Speaker 3: right trade personally, but like what does that right trade
Speaker 3: look like? I'm not exactly sure, but like you kind
Speaker 3: of have TOI outweigh like what could he bring back
Speaker 3: versus what could he potentially bring to this team this year.
Speaker 3: So again, no one should be untouchable, but like you
Speaker 3: really have to figure out, like does it make sense
Speaker 3: for that trade.
Speaker 2: One thing too, I'll say about just prospects in general
Speaker 2: and trade. Talking general comes from something someone mentioned the
Speaker 2: chat about Alec Briley about a potential trade chip for
Speaker 2: the Sacks. I think it's starting ends with the fact
Speaker 2: that at White Sox with three you mentioned this, he's
Speaker 2: twenty five years old, right, Like he's twenty five in
Speaker 2: double lights. That's the sort of thing that the team's
Speaker 2: not looking for, right like. Unfortunately, that's why the Caleb
Speaker 2: Bonners continue to come up, or even Burgoya comes up
Speaker 2: every now and again. It's just it's so hard to
Speaker 2: project guys. Yes, but the older they get, saying someone's
Speaker 2: old at twenty five, it just hurts now that I'm
Speaker 2: twenty nine. Just to be completely clear about this, But
Speaker 2: the older older guys get, the less valuable they seem
Speaker 2: at the deadline, which is unfortunate, but it plays into
Speaker 2: Michael your point of like, I just don't think anybody
Speaker 2: should be untouchable. You don't need to make a move
Speaker 2: just to make a move, But I've watched too many
Speaker 2: prospects crash and burn, like at a certain point you
Speaker 2: got a trade for a sure thing, which I guess
Speaker 2: though when we've talked about this a little bit, the
Speaker 2: player development system being better for the White Sox certainly
Speaker 2: helps that, I guess is a question for anybody. Is
Speaker 2: there a team we all think makes as a good
Speaker 2: trade deadline partner for the Socks just because of who
Speaker 2: they have or what they might be willing to take away.
Speaker 2: I guess, Mill, either you or anyone who has any
Speaker 2: thoughts on that one.
Speaker 1: Well, well, just based las based on the fact that
Speaker 1: your point of how many prospects crash and burned, nobody
Speaker 1: should be untouchable. Nothing's a sure thing. I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean San Diego, they're always willing to do business with us, right,
Speaker 1: I mean we can get that James Shields type picture tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Right, Listen, you know it's just yeah, Sandio is a
Speaker 2: good answer. I didn't love the James Shields piece, but
Speaker 2: Sandig is a good answer. I don't know. It's a
Speaker 2: difficult one to figure out, truly.
Speaker 1: The only point I'm trying to make is like, we
Speaker 1: can't trade with reckless abandonment. I guess is about way
Speaker 1: to put it. Guys should be available, but we have
Speaker 1: to value them.
Speaker 2: Correctly, correct right, And I kind of got what you
Speaker 2: were putting putting out there. Yeah, it's not make a
Speaker 2: move to make a move, it just be careful as
Speaker 2: you're doing it. I guess, long story short, go.
Speaker 1: Ahead, Michael, I know you're dying to answer it.
Speaker 3: I mean, if we're really trying to get Mason Miller,
Speaker 3: I guess the Padres could make sense, but I don't
Speaker 3: actually think that's going to happen. The one team that
Speaker 3: I keep going back to is the Angels, and they
Speaker 3: do weird stuff every trade deadline, so like who knows
Speaker 3: like what they're actually going to do this year. But
Speaker 3: redet Meers is the guy that I've just had circled
Speaker 3: this entire time. That just makes too much sense if
Speaker 3: they're willing to make that kind of move and he's
Speaker 3: not going to cost bondom or I don't think. Probably
Speaker 3: a package around Billy Carlson, which we have so much
Speaker 3: up in the middle and field, like you got to
Speaker 3: be open to that. Recent reports have also talked about
Speaker 3: them being interested in acquiring a young catcher. Could they
Speaker 3: be interested in reacquiring a former catcher in the form
Speaker 3: of Edgar Carro since it sounds like the White Sox
Speaker 3: are looking to add to their catching room anyways, is
Speaker 3: that something they would be open to. I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's just something that does kind of line up. And
Speaker 3: I don't know how much they'd even value Kara at
Speaker 3: this point, but he is still a young player with upside.
Speaker 1: They don't have much.
Speaker 3: Long term for a catcher of the future option, like
Speaker 3: as a secondary piece, Maybe something around Billy Carlson and
Speaker 3: Edgar Caro does make sense. For Redetmers, who not only
Speaker 3: gives us, you know, a guy that can sit in
Speaker 3: the upper half of our rotation this year, but is
Speaker 3: also controllable for another two years and kind of fits
Speaker 3: our timeline a little better. So that that's just the
Speaker 3: one that keeps coming back to me, like if they're
Speaker 3: willing to make that bigger, splashing move, like that just
Speaker 3: makes so much sense.
Speaker 2: One thing I'm interested into you mentioned the Angels is
Speaker 2: the Socks could use one more right handed bat that
Speaker 2: plays outfield. I think it's been mentioned a couple of times.
Speaker 2: I think I don't know how long this Tristan Peter's
Speaker 2: kind of mini slump will last. But you're always worried then,
Speaker 2: I think, Nick, we've talked about them a ton of
Speaker 2: the expected stats don't exactly line up consistently with Peters.
Speaker 2: You're always worried that Midnight strikes at some point for him.
Speaker 2: I wonder if Joe Adelle becomes available for the Angels
Speaker 2: as well, just does one thing well and it's hits
Speaker 2: right handed pitching, or it hits left handed pitching as
Speaker 2: a right hander, maybe that's something that they decide to
Speaker 2: explore too. I think that's where the angels could make
Speaker 2: sense beyond just Detmer's or sorry on I think this
Speaker 2: question makes the most sense on the frame of how
Speaker 2: many how many guys can you knock off at once? Right?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: If I can go to the Mets and say, let's
Speaker 2: get Weaver and Holmes and maybe a bat, like, how
Speaker 2: many things can pull from there? Yeah, Louise Frock exactly
Speaker 2: how many bad? How many things can I pull from
Speaker 2: a team or the Reds like everyone's been talking about,
Speaker 2: like Singer and Stevenson, right, Like, how many guys can
Speaker 2: I pull from one trade? Even due to your point,
Speaker 2: the Padres kind of feel that maybe a reliever, and
Speaker 2: they've talked about Michael King as well potentially being available.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, it just depends on what everyone
Speaker 2: thinks might be best.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess, like what Michael would you consider? I
Speaker 1: guess any of you can answer this what would be
Speaker 1: considered a successful trade deadline? I'm very much on board
Speaker 1: with the red Detmer's idea. I feel like I've been
Speaker 1: perfectly clear on that. I did see somebody in the
Speaker 1: chat bring up Holmes from the Mets. I think the
Speaker 1: only thing that would worry anybody would just be the
Speaker 1: timeline of him coming back from injury, but obviously his
Speaker 1: body work speaks for itself. Like what is an ideal
Speaker 1: trade deadline for You don't even need to say names
Speaker 1: of the players you acquire, it's just what do we
Speaker 1: need to address?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean for me, like you have to get
Speaker 3: a starting pitcher that you actually trust in the playoffs
Speaker 3: ahead of Anthony Kay and Eric Fetti. I think that's
Speaker 3: prior to number one. I think you probably have to
Speaker 3: acquire at least one more reliever. It doesn't have to
Speaker 3: be a closer, but like it has to be someone
Speaker 3: that you can trust in the sixth or seventh inning.
Speaker 3: And for me, I think you got to get a catcher,
Speaker 3: something that resembles a competent catcher, because we just haven't
Speaker 3: had much of that this year. And I know it
Speaker 3: hasn't hurt us this year, but I think it's something
Speaker 3: we have to acquire. I'm not saying it has to
Speaker 3: be shay lngliers is out and out. I'm not saying
Speaker 3: it has to be like some all star catcher, but
Speaker 3: just someone that can actually be a net post for us.
Speaker 2: I'm on a similar path where it just hey, get somebody,
Speaker 2: get somebody that fills each of those pieces, right, Like,
Speaker 2: I'm not expecting anything flashy. I'm really not, because partially
Speaker 2: because of what I mentioned earlier Micha, when we were
Speaker 2: talking about like prospect capital, like socks have some intriguing pieces,
Speaker 2: but I don't know if that's exactly what teams tend
Speaker 2: to trade for at the deadline. Like trade trades at
Speaker 2: the deadline are weird. They're not if you try and
Speaker 2: evaluate them in the same way you do like an
Speaker 2: off season trade, You're you're not gonna get the same
Speaker 2: idea behind it. Huge guys don't move a lot of times,
Speaker 2: huge bats don't move, and the huge prospect bats don't
Speaker 2: move at the deadline, Like it's very hard to figure
Speaker 2: out what's available to Like someone's mentioned in the chat,
Speaker 2: like a bunch of guys from the Orioles. I don't
Speaker 2: think the Oriols are ready to sell. They're not that
Speaker 2: far away. Like even that al Wes like five hundred
Speaker 2: is pretty much keeping you in that division. The trade
Speaker 2: deadline is so hard because so many teams can make
Speaker 2: a can make an argument. I guess to stay in it, right, Like,
Speaker 2: It's it's very hard, and I think this year is
Speaker 2: going to be a certain seller's market, and you're going
Speaker 2: to be very happy if you're selling guys off, because
Speaker 2: there are few teams that are really committed to doing that,
Speaker 2: and I think prices are going to skyrocket, and that's
Speaker 2: where I'm like, I just don't know. For the Socks.
Speaker 2: If it's in the cards with with where their prospect
Speaker 2: capital is, I'd maybe feel better about it in another year,
Speaker 2: if that makes sense.
Speaker 4: Yeah, these are good points. I mean, if I had
Speaker 4: to rank it, I would say my number one Waih
Speaker 4: is a starting pitcher, honestly. Second, I'd probably catcher, just
Speaker 4: because I'm so tired of our catchers. And then third
Speaker 4: would be like another starting pitcher I'd actually like more
Speaker 4: than my fourth wish, which would be a reliever. The
Speaker 4: only thing on relievers that I'll say really quick is
Speaker 4: that if you really do have like Hagen Smith and
Speaker 4: Tanner McDougal potentially joining the Major League bullpen, and then
Speaker 4: you have other guys down to like erie Arte and
Speaker 4: wig them and Gonzales and I think there's one more
Speaker 4: on triple A was kind of intriguing, like, yeah, you
Speaker 4: still like I would like the Major League bullpen to
Speaker 4: be and Freud, but you still have a lot of
Speaker 4: internal options that you don't necessarily have at catcher or
Speaker 4: a starting pitcher unless you really like Mason Adams or Sandling.
Speaker 4: So that's why I would frame it that way. But basically,
Speaker 4: just pitching help, that's the main thing I want.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we need a We're gonna need a short term
Speaker 1: answer for Kyle Teal at the very least, just based
Speaker 1: on where we are we are with catcher, preferably a
Speaker 1: guy that wouldn't rush Teal back into the swing of
Speaker 1: things if that's the route we want to go. Honestly,
Speaker 1: for anybody on a good catcher discussion, I highly recommend
Speaker 1: listening to the last pod we did, because we went
Speaker 1: we went pretty good in a detail about kind of
Speaker 1: the different catchers that are on the deadline, really good
Speaker 1: pool of them, and some rentals who probably wouldn't cost
Speaker 1: an arm and a leg to grab up either. But
Speaker 1: there's also the discussion, and I don't want to get
Speaker 1: into it right now, because that turned into a big
Speaker 1: discussion on the last pod, was do you take the
Speaker 1: long term approach and you go and really take a
Speaker 1: serious look at it, like a Shay Langelier's For the record,
Speaker 1: I don't think Adley Rodgman's going anywhere, but the Orioles
Speaker 1: are terribly run organization anyway, so who knows. But anyway, LEAs,
Speaker 1: I believe you have taken the rain on fan questions tonight.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so thank you to everyone who sent them in.
Speaker 2: We're monitoring the chat. I'm gonna try and add those
Speaker 2: in as well. We're gonna try to get to as
Speaker 2: many as we can in a reasonable amount of time
Speaker 2: we have. We're gonna start with some of the ones
Speaker 2: that folks sent in ahead of time, and some folks
Speaker 2: asked similar questions, so hopefully you're feels like he had
Speaker 2: it covered. If I butcher your name, sorry, I will
Speaker 2: do my best. We will start with this question from
Speaker 2: b Pasaia and I believe white sox eric on X
Speaker 2: also asked this one as well. One of us will
Speaker 2: take all of these questions. So do you think we
Speaker 2: should take on money in a trade to send back
Speaker 2: less prospect capital And I think we're letting our prospect
Speaker 2: expert Michael kind of take that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So this this was a little bit of a discussion
Speaker 3: on Twitter recently because of a recent article from Bob
Speaker 3: Nightingale talking about the Socks may not be willing to
Speaker 3: trade one of their top prospects, but they may be
Speaker 3: willing to eat some money in order to lessen the
Speaker 3: return that they would have to give up for someone
Speaker 3: in a trade.
Speaker 2: And there was a lot of.
Speaker 3: Pushback on that, like like, don't be prospect hugging, Like
Speaker 3: what are you doing? Like if the White Sox are
Speaker 3: willing to eat some money to get an actual upgrade
Speaker 3: on this roster, why wouldn't we want them to do that?
Speaker 3: Like we've been complaining about this team cheaping out for
Speaker 3: so long. It feels like if they're actually going to
Speaker 3: open up the checkbook and go out and say this
Speaker 3: picture can be a third starter for us. But the
Speaker 3: team wants to get a salary off the books, Sure
Speaker 3: we'll eat a salary so we don't have to give
Speaker 3: up a lot of prospect capital. Like that makes too
Speaker 3: much sense to me if that kind of trade is
Speaker 3: on the table. I don't know exactly if that trade
Speaker 3: will be on the table, but like, there's a couple
Speaker 3: guys who are under some expensive contracts beyond this year,
Speaker 3: a couple like just off the top of my head
Speaker 3: that I can think of our Michael King from the
Speaker 3: Padres and Luis Castill from the Mariners, like maybe their
Speaker 3: teams want to get out of those contracts, Like most
Speaker 3: teams aren't gonna be willing to take on those full contracts.
Speaker 3: The White Sox have nothing, like basically nothing tied up
Speaker 3: in terms of salary over the next few years. Why
Speaker 3: wouldn't you take advantage of that if it means like
Speaker 3: upgrading your roster for a minimal return, Like I get
Speaker 3: the point that we don't want to be prospect huggers,
Speaker 3: because frankly, that's why the Orioles windows shut so quickly,
Speaker 3: because they wouldn't trade any of their decent prospects. And
Speaker 3: I know you guys wanted to detail on that in
Speaker 3: the last episode, but I don't want to end up
Speaker 3: like that either. But why trade prospects if we don't
Speaker 3: have to? Like, it just makes too much sense to
Speaker 3: me to do something like that if if the other
Speaker 3: team is willing to do that.
Speaker 1: And it also helps that we happen to have an
Speaker 1: owner who loves the term cash considerations more than anybody
Speaker 1: else in sports. And honestly, Louis Castillo, I can very
Speaker 1: much get on board with having to pay it, like go,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, break my heart to pay Luis Castillo
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 3: And he's he got off to a rough start this year,
Speaker 3: but like he's been much better recently. Like I think
Speaker 3: he has like a mid three era since like mid May,
Speaker 3: so like he's pitching closer to like what his old
Speaker 3: form is. Like he's not quite his prime Luis Castillo,
Speaker 3: but like he'd still be a hell of up there
Speaker 3: than Anthony Kay and Eric Fetti. And if we don't
Speaker 3: have to give up much for him in terms of
Speaker 3: prospect capital, again, why would.
Speaker 1: You not do that? He's an absolute dog on the
Speaker 1: mound too. If anybody can turn around and have like
Speaker 1: a strong playoff run just kind of out of the blue,
Speaker 1: it would be a guy like Luis Castillo. Yep.
Speaker 2: Let's uh, let's talk next about a guy. Logan web
Speaker 2: Jose De Santiago Colie on Facebook. What are the possibilities
Speaker 2: of the White Sox landing logan web and how many
Speaker 2: prospects will it take to get him one top one
Speaker 2: hundred or what's the price? Basically he mentioned Noah Schultz
Speaker 2: as well. Duke, I think you're gonna take this one.
Speaker 2: I know you're a big logan Web guy, And I'll
Speaker 2: ask kind of the follow up question on top of
Speaker 2: this is are you willing to move Noah Schultz in
Speaker 2: the right package, whether or not it's the Logan Web package.
Speaker 1: Well, it's gonna have to. It's gonna take San Francisco
Speaker 1: being willing to accept that they're kink, that they're willing
Speaker 1: to give up a guy like Logan Web. This guy
Speaker 1: who's going to be under control until about twenty twenty nine,
Speaker 1: has a has a decent sized little contract. Honestly signed
Speaker 1: it in twenty four or five years, ninety million, which
Speaker 1: would actually be right up the ballpark of what the
Speaker 1: white sex should be spending on a picture like Logan Web.
Speaker 1: But you're gonna get consistency out of this guy every
Speaker 1: single day. He's going to be the exact type of
Speaker 1: picture you want in this rotation. Right now, he is
Speaker 1: just consistency personified. Not a lot of strikeouts, doesn't get
Speaker 1: hit hard, doesn't walk a ton of batters, has had
Speaker 1: a little bit of a walk issues this year, but
Speaker 1: something that can definitely get honed in. It's going to
Speaker 1: depend on where San Francisco sees a roster. And I
Speaker 1: also think a guy out of San Francisco too, you
Speaker 1: should take a look at and we brought him up
Speaker 1: on this podcast quite a bit Skuy like Robbie Ray.
Speaker 1: So there there is discussions that should definitely happen in
Speaker 1: San Francisco. As far as what they're going to pull
Speaker 1: for a guy like Logan Web, it's gonna be tough
Speaker 1: with that contract control. He's gonna definitely be the higher price.
Speaker 1: They're definitely gonna be dangling a guy like Robbie Ray
Speaker 1: instead of him. Honestly, I don't think this. I don't
Speaker 1: see the unless unless the Socks really can get good
Speaker 1: value for a team that like would really buy into
Speaker 1: the development cycle, that's gonna be Noah Schultz. I don't
Speaker 1: see him getting involved in too much in this trade deadline.
Speaker 1: And I still feel like the Socks are still really
Speaker 1: high on him despite what he's shown on the major
Speaker 1: league level. But I do think top one hundred. I mean,
Speaker 1: how many top one hundred prospects do we have in
Speaker 1: the system right now?
Speaker 3: Like I mean right now, if you're not including Rockchalowski
Speaker 3: since he can't be traded, you really have two unanimous
Speaker 3: ones that's uh, that's Bonimer and Billy Carlson. So though
Speaker 3: that's pretty much it. I mean, Hagen Smith is still
Speaker 3: technically on MLB pipeline, but I would be surprised if
Speaker 3: he's still a top hunch of prospect when they actually
Speaker 3: refresh that.
Speaker 2: I think if you're moving a guy with control, you
Speaker 2: have to be willing to move Bonomer straight up.
Speaker 1: Or either Bontomer was the guy guy that kind of
Speaker 1: came to mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you're getting guy with control, you're moving Bonomer.
Speaker 2: I know it's a mixed opinion on moving Schultz. I
Speaker 2: just it depends on and Duke we have this conversation,
Speaker 2: depends on how long you think this development timeline is
Speaker 2: for him. I happen to think it's maybe a little
Speaker 2: bit longer than the average fan does. And I'm gonna say, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'd move him if the right package came together. I'm
Speaker 2: not moving him for a rental, obviously, but when you're
Speaker 2: talking about years of control, you got to give up
Speaker 2: a pretty penny and no matter who it is, and
Speaker 2: especially like eighteen million on average for Loco webs contract
Speaker 2: the next the two years of control, like yeah, that's
Speaker 2: that's less than an a starter makes, so straight up,
Speaker 2: you got you gotta be willing to pay for it.
Speaker 2: So alright, we're gonna go to Dave Charline's question. If
Speaker 2: I can find the right buttons to hit, there we go, Nick,
Speaker 2: I think this one's going to you. I keep hearing
Speaker 2: Mason Miller's name being linked to the Sacks. Personally, I
Speaker 2: think he would be a lower priority than at least
Speaker 2: one starter that has shown the ability to pitch deep
Speaker 2: into games. Nick agreed, disagree.
Speaker 4: I yeah, I mostly agree. There are a lot of
Speaker 4: intricacies with the Mason Miller debate happening among white Sox
Speaker 4: fans right now, and I do respect that it's obviously
Speaker 4: not a repeat of Craig Camberrell, and that he's better
Speaker 4: than Craig Camberrell. He's pretty much an automatic this season,
Speaker 4: so you have to give him credit there. And of course,
Speaker 4: unlike Kimberly still has several three and a half years
Speaker 4: of control, whereas Kimball was a rental, so that's the
Speaker 4: main difference there. However, that also means the prospect package
Speaker 4: is going to be much much bigger. This is where
Speaker 4: Caleb Bonhamer would almost certainly be included, would have to
Speaker 4: be included, I should say, I don't even know if
Speaker 4: a Billy Carlson headline package is enough for Mason Miller.
Speaker 4: Give them what they Yeah, Michael agrees, given what they
Speaker 4: traded to get for him last year. They traded a
Speaker 4: top five prospects in baseball, so it probably would have
Speaker 4: to be Bonham or plus plus. And there was a
Speaker 4: comment in our chat from Uncle Ted who said that
Speaker 4: he would rather have Adrian Murray Hone than Mason Miller, saying,
Speaker 4: also on the padres another very good reliever, and he
Speaker 4: would be a rental. So I'm actually in agreement with that,
Speaker 4: even though Murray Hone is a lefty and we have
Speaker 4: a lot of good lefties and the bullpen already still
Speaker 4: just from a prospect capital standpoint, would agree there. But yeah,
Speaker 4: the argument against it, or against me, I should say,
Speaker 4: is just imagine Mason Miller in this bullpen you have.
Speaker 4: He gets the ninth inning, you know, Grant Taylor gets
Speaker 4: the eighth and or seventh. I like the game just
Speaker 4: ends after the seventh inning, kind of like the Hendrix
Speaker 4: kimberrel thing, at least in theory, not how it really
Speaker 4: worked out, of course, but I get the allure of that.
Speaker 4: I'm just too concerned about the starting pitching to say
Speaker 4: that I want to cash all the chips in on
Speaker 4: a ninth inning guy. That's why I'm saying, if we're
Speaker 4: going to trade Bonhmer, I'd rather not. But if we're
Speaker 4: going to trade Bonber, I'd rather be for a Logan
Speaker 4: Web type than for a Mason Miller. But you know,
Speaker 4: maybe you do a trade with the Padres. Maybe if
Speaker 4: it is with me Samiller, than great. But maybe you
Speaker 4: find a way to get some other guys thrown in,
Speaker 4: like a Michael King or I always injured, like a Giorlito,
Speaker 4: or somebody who could at least help you a little
Speaker 4: bit on the starting side. That's like maybe the silver
Speaker 4: lining if you want a starter. But overall, yeah, I
Speaker 4: would be quite the cost to get Miller, And while
Speaker 4: he is pretty much an automatic save, it's still a
Speaker 4: very hefty cost when you have a lot of other needs.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, for.
Speaker 3: What it's sort of, I don't get Logan Web or
Speaker 3: Mason Miller are getting traded this deadline. I'd be shocked
Speaker 3: if either of them they ended up getting moved.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think what you got to San Francisco. I
Speaker 1: really think Robbie Rai is the most most realistic one
Speaker 1: they would move on from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I honestly agree with that. So next couple questions
Speaker 2: I will be taking and then a little bit faster
Speaker 2: for both of them. Rich Bensinger, how can we get
Speaker 2: rid of Sir Anthony Demingez? I you really can't. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: I think they've kind of nerved him as much as possible.
Speaker 2: To be honest with you, he came in a twelve
Speaker 2: to three ball game today and did fine, So you've
Speaker 2: got to build his confidence back up right at a
Speaker 2: certain point. He needs to get better and you kind
Speaker 2: of need him otherwise now you need an extra ble
Speaker 2: pen arm. So I don't know, it's it's a weird
Speaker 2: situation and a not an easy one either, But the
Speaker 2: short answer is you gotta just kind of do what
Speaker 2: they've been doing and kind of nerve him as much
Speaker 2: as possible. So next one White Sox three. Seeing as
Speaker 2: our catcher position is an automatic out, no matter what,
Speaker 2: would y'all rather see us get a good number three
Speaker 2: pitcher and continue to suffer mediocre catching, or go get
Speaker 2: an eight grade catcher and bring up Sandlin or Smith
Speaker 2: to cover for Schultz after this weekend? To be honest
Speaker 2: with you, I think you need two starters at this point.
Speaker 2: I Fetti being four innings twice through the order max
Speaker 2: plus Schultz not really showing you anything to that he
Speaker 2: can get through six innings. You really need to starters.
Speaker 2: I think started ask to be the priority, but I
Speaker 2: don't think that allows you to skip out on getting
Speaker 2: a catcher. But I don't think you got to break
Speaker 2: the bank, especially because now Langoliers is hurt too. They're
Speaker 2: not gonna move him. We talked ad nause and about
Speaker 2: Rutchmand's not getting moved, so that leaves everyone bidding for
Speaker 2: hunder Goodman, and I just don't think the Socks would
Speaker 2: win that that that trade bidding. So all right, Michael,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna pass it to you. Just handle one, two
Speaker 2: three from YouTube. What do you think the planet potentially
Speaker 2: bring up some arms from Triple A down the stretch,
Speaker 2: I assume mostly in a reliever role. And do you
Speaker 2: think there's any potential to leverage some of their veteran
Speaker 2: arms as trade chips?
Speaker 3: Uh? So I'm gonna i'll tackle that second question.
Speaker 1: First.
Speaker 3: You mentioned Chris Murphy and Trevor Richards there.
Speaker 1: Like maybe they could.
Speaker 3: I think they'd have to have some some trade for
Speaker 3: to acquire relievers in line before they commit to trading
Speaker 3: one of those guys.
Speaker 1: Just because you don't want to deplete your bullpen too much.
Speaker 3: Like it's possible depending on if, like if that's the
Speaker 3: way you can get the starting pitching help you need.
Speaker 3: Maybe I'd say, like if there's a reliever like on
Speaker 3: the current mob roster who could get trade, I think
Speaker 3: like the most likely one would be like Tyler Schweitzer,
Speaker 3: who's still the closer to that prospect status and you're
Speaker 3: probably not going to be on the roster in a
Speaker 3: playoff push, but maybe has a little bit of upside,
Speaker 3: So like i'd say there's a less likelihood of that happening.
Speaker 3: But in terms of the Triple A arms, yeah, I
Speaker 3: think that I think the plan is that they're going
Speaker 3: to call up both Tanner McDougall and Hagen Smith to
Speaker 3: join the bullpen like soon, like within the next couple
Speaker 3: of weeks, Like maybe they want to see what their
Speaker 3: bullpen looks like after the trade deadline. But I think
Speaker 3: that the plan for moving both of them to the
Speaker 3: bullpen in Triple A now was like directly correlated with
Speaker 3: their plan to get them in the Major League bullpen
Speaker 3: like for this playoff push, so like that would I'd
Speaker 3: be more surprised if they aren't up, honestly, Shane Smith,
Speaker 3: I don't know, like they haven't really put him in
Speaker 3: a bullpen roll and he's still kind of inconsistent in
Speaker 3: triple A, Like it's hard to really trust him right now.
Speaker 3: One more name I want to mention, and it would
Speaker 3: actually be as a starter is Mason Adams has been
Speaker 3: pretty good in his starts now that he's healthy and
Speaker 3: back in the Charlotte Knights rotation. Like, if you can't
Speaker 3: get two starting pitchers of this deadline, don't be surprised
Speaker 3: to see him make some starts this year. I mean
Speaker 3: I would probably replace him with No Schultz in the
Speaker 3: rotation right now, for being completely honest, Like, just see
Speaker 3: what he's got in the m'll be uh in MLB
Speaker 3: setting right now. But yeah, that's just one more name
Speaker 3: to keep an.
Speaker 1: Eye on there. I'm sorry, I'm I'm just watching like
Speaker 1: a civil war go on between our chat and I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty great. Uncle Ted and White sox SO
Speaker 1: three are really going at it. I appreciate you boys,
Speaker 1: Just just so you guys all know anyone watching this
Speaker 1: I'm watching the chat and I'm getting the real kick.
Speaker 1: You're talking some good stuff out here.
Speaker 2: I know there are some good questions in there. I
Speaker 2: want to make sure we find time for once we
Speaker 2: get through some of these earlier ones too.
Speaker 1: So I think, for the record, right before we get
Speaker 1: to another one, just because you kind of flew through it,
Speaker 1: how many relievers do we have that are just so
Speaker 1: much worse? And Sir Anthony Domingus when it comes to
Speaker 1: expectations versus reality, Yes, nobody's nobody's failed worse since Sir
Speaker 1: Anthony Domingus out of our bullpen. But we could do
Speaker 1: so much worse, and based on how much we're paying him,
Speaker 1: like there's absolutely no chance he's going anywhere.
Speaker 2: I do agree with that. I do agree you could
Speaker 2: do much this This is this was who he is
Speaker 2: right like this. Yes the results are a little bit worse,
Speaker 2: but high strike out rate, high walk rate, like this
Speaker 2: is look look at the numbers from years past. This
Speaker 2: is who he is.
Speaker 1: And he absolutely shoves in the playoffs when he's when
Speaker 1: he's asked to go on abound. He has a career,
Speaker 1: great career playoff record, So all right, not to defend him,
Speaker 1: he has been awful, but I.
Speaker 2: Do get it though. But next question from at Jacob
Speaker 2: underscore Shiner on Twitter x whatever. The Socks have been
Speaker 2: linked to Clay Holmes, who has a two thirty five
Speaker 2: ERA but mid to high threes in his peripherals. Nick,
Speaker 2: I do love this question. It is going to you.
Speaker 2: Do you guys with bad peripherals more often get priced
Speaker 2: per their results or their future expectations?
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a great question. Uh. Kind of two
Speaker 4: things here. The first one is Clay Holmes in general. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I agree with the maybe the implication here if the
Speaker 4: White Soxes do end up trading for Clay Holmes. As
Speaker 4: a fan, I would not think of it as oh
Speaker 4: my god, we just got our ace, our game one
Speaker 4: starter at blah blah blah, give it more as we
Speaker 4: just got like a solid number three. Who can you
Speaker 4: you're comfortable giving the ball to in the playoffs? But
Speaker 4: he's not the guy, you know what I mean. So,
Speaker 4: in terms of the question, do guys with bad peripherals
Speaker 4: more often get priced based on the results of the future?
Speaker 4: I do think, and I'd welcome obviously anyone else's thoughts
Speaker 4: on this, but I do think the MLB teams are
Speaker 4: a lot more worried about protecting the future when they
Speaker 4: make these deals rather than just trading for a guy
Speaker 4: based on those era. I think Duke brought up Robbie
Speaker 4: Ray at one point. Robby Ray has a great ra
Speaker 4: right now, it's like three point one five or whatever,
Speaker 4: but pretty much everything else looks bad. And I'm not
Speaker 4: saying I don't want him, like I actually kind of do.
Speaker 4: I think he'd be a good fit. He has you know,
Speaker 4: a lot of experiences, et cetera. But I wouldn't be
Speaker 4: paying you know, top dollar for him either, because the
Speaker 4: peripherals are bad. So, at least my read on it,
Speaker 4: I don't have a great trade to point to as
Speaker 4: an example, but I think that teams tend to care
Speaker 4: more about the under the hood stuff, whether it's peripherals
Speaker 4: or whether it's even getting even a layer deeper than that,
Speaker 4: like the information that's not even publicly available to fans,
Speaker 4: like the deeper version of what you would get from
Speaker 4: stat cast. I think that goes into it a lot,
Speaker 4: basically thinking about it in terms of not what does
Speaker 4: this guy, what has he done in the past, But
Speaker 4: if we can tweak him in this way, or we
Speaker 4: can make an adjustment with him, what do we think
Speaker 4: he'll do for us in the future. So in somebody
Speaker 4: in the case with somebody like Clay Holmes, you're hoping
Speaker 4: that he I mean, you're you're hoping he can continue
Speaker 4: being a two point three to five ye right pitcher
Speaker 4: whiche and is unlikely, but more realistically, you're hoping he
Speaker 4: can just give you six innings and you know, get
Speaker 4: quality starts like six inning and three run and you
Speaker 4: know the occasional one or two is what you're hoping
Speaker 4: for from him. Because his problem is he has he
Speaker 4: relies a lot on his sinker, but he doesn't really
Speaker 4: miss bats, which is fine if you're getting a lot
Speaker 4: of ground balls. But his problem is he gives up
Speaker 4: a little more, sorry, a few more flyballs and he
Speaker 4: would think for a primary sinker guy at least this
Speaker 4: season so far, and he gets hit pretty hard, which
Speaker 4: if it's on the ground it doesn't matter too much.
Speaker 4: But he's got to focus on, you know, just keeping
Speaker 4: the contact on the ground, because that's always the problem
Speaker 4: with sinker bawlers. You don't miss bats. As soon as
Speaker 4: that ground ball right goes from fifty five percent to
Speaker 4: like fifty or forty five. Even though it seems slight,
Speaker 4: it ends up making a huge impact on the overall performance.
Speaker 4: So I like him as a trade target. But I
Speaker 4: would want the White Sox to be trading for the
Speaker 4: you know, the underlying metrics, and not the era, because
Speaker 4: that's where you end up losing a lot of deals.
Speaker 2: I agree with that, and I would be comfort I
Speaker 2: would like to see them. I think the Mets are
Speaker 2: a great trade partner for them if they really wanted
Speaker 2: to get a controllable catcher that isn't the top of
Speaker 2: the market. Francisco Alvarez would be interesting to me, butcher
Speaker 2: behind the plate, But so's everybody the Socks have had
Speaker 2: so far, so at a certain point, get a bat,
Speaker 2: right like that? That's the one thing when it comes
Speaker 2: to and I know it's not the question, but to
Speaker 2: kind of take a little bit of a tangent. That's
Speaker 2: the thing where I talk about, like, you know, we've
Speaker 2: survived without the catching piece. It's like, yes, so if
Speaker 2: you can add a bat, why don't you Because the
Speaker 2: defense has been pretty bad regardless, so why not just
Speaker 2: make put a bat there? But Holmes I like a
Speaker 2: lot I thing if you added two Holmes type pitchers
Speaker 2: that would be fine for me. My problem is, yes,
Speaker 2: he's not exactly your guaranteed six inning guy, right, And
Speaker 2: I think that was my biggest concern so far. But
Speaker 2: I think in terms of the question around peripherals and
Speaker 2: how it is, it's like a negotiation, right, Like I'm
Speaker 2: going to go in and I'm going to say, I've
Speaker 2: got this guy with a two thirty five ERA, which
Speaker 2: is top whatever in the league, right, and a smart
Speaker 2: team is gonna be like, nah, well they're what's really
Speaker 2: going on under the hood there, Like what are some
Speaker 2: of the numbers behind it? All of these teams have it.
Speaker 2: I think it's negotiation points, And Duke Michael, I welcome
Speaker 2: your thoughts as well. I think it ends up that
Speaker 2: the peripherals help realistic set the realistic piece of the
Speaker 2: price and maybe bring it back to the reality of
Speaker 2: it to where the results are going to speak for
Speaker 2: themselves obviously, but I do think the peripherals kind of
Speaker 2: help right size any sort of value in a trade.
Speaker 1: Well, I think, And actually I saw something in the
Speaker 1: chat just asking about like underrated arms like Robbie Ray
Speaker 1: and Clay Holmes are kind of like those are kind
Speaker 1: of your answers, because those are kind of like the
Speaker 1: not necessarily bargain bind trades. They would be the easier
Speaker 1: trades to make than say, going and get a guy
Speaker 1: like Detmur's or Schooble, which isn't fucking happening. I need
Speaker 1: people to really just get off of that. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna happen if we get Schooble, Like the next trade
Speaker 1: would be us going and trading for Adley Rutchman. Like
Speaker 1: that's that's how deep you have to think you were
Speaker 1: about to go in if you're in trade for a
Speaker 1: freaking Schooble on a rental. And but I really I
Speaker 1: agree with the assessment that you kind of made on
Speaker 1: that Nick with Yes, that era looks great. It's kind
Speaker 1: of like when you see the batting average of a hitter, Wow,
Speaker 1: that looks awesome, but then you just kind of ignore
Speaker 1: everything else. That's that's why guys who you know, they'll
Speaker 1: hit two sixty nine batting average and then they won't
Speaker 1: be in the league the next year because other teams
Speaker 1: are smartened up to that. But does that mean that
Speaker 1: a Clay Holmes or a Robbie Ray wouldn't be a
Speaker 1: net positive or net win for this trade deadline. Absolutely
Speaker 1: not I would take either of them, and I think
Speaker 1: uh Luis Castillo another one. There's definitely there's definitely those
Speaker 1: arms out there. Every team kind of has some of
Speaker 1: those guys. But that's why you're gonna see That's why
Speaker 1: you're gonna see some of these guys get traded for
Speaker 1: underwhelming returns even though they have a low ERA. It's
Speaker 1: kind of similar to when we traded Adrian Houser last year.
Speaker 1: You know, that's really the best ession.
Speaker 2: That's a good comp of like what value might look
Speaker 2: like for guys with decent numbers, but like what's really
Speaker 2: going on under the hood. The Eric Fetti one is
Speaker 2: another one where we not we all. I hated that
Speaker 2: trade at the time, and I have to eat a
Speaker 2: lot of crap for that because I hated that trade.
Speaker 2: But that's that's an interesting kind comp as well of
Speaker 2: another guy who clearly under the hood. Anybody who has
Speaker 2: opened Baseball Reference in their lifetime or fan Graphs saw
Speaker 2: the issues with Fetti and that kind of those two
Speaker 2: deals I think are good ones to be like, Hey,
Speaker 2: how how does e er versus your peripheral? How do
Speaker 2: results versus peripherals? Kind of balance out there always an
Speaker 2: interesting part of it.
Speaker 3: So quick note, my cardio has never been better with
Speaker 3: all the victory laps. I've been running around being happy
Speaker 3: about that. In miguelve Artist trade, no one likes a gloater.
Speaker 3: You know, it's good to be humble, Mike, that one
Speaker 3: was so hated on though that, like I have to
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but like the people that were talking about, oh,
Speaker 3: they should have gotten Connor Norby instead, like it.
Speaker 1: Still insultome drives me.
Speaker 2: I had a bad couple of weeks.
Speaker 3: I'm going to keep running those victory laps on that
Speaker 3: one I had.
Speaker 2: I had a bad couple of weeks. Take it a
Speaker 2: quick sid of My brother and I don't often agree
Speaker 2: on this team, but both of us have looked at
Speaker 2: each other recently like we both were wrong about that trade.
Speaker 2: And the last thing I'll say on the Holmes piece
Speaker 2: are just guys in general, like the Rays, the Holmes,
Speaker 2: maybe don't blow your socks off. It's another kind of
Speaker 2: tangential story. My dad and I are both not super handymen,
Speaker 2: but we do things around the house and we have
Speaker 2: a saying it's better than it was before. So if
Speaker 2: you can do that that's my bar for a lot
Speaker 2: of this team, especially at the trade deadline when we
Speaker 2: don't really know what you're gonna get.
Speaker 1: So my victory lapse will be around probably next year
Speaker 1: when it comes to Louisan Helicunya, because I was trying
Speaker 1: really hard not to run them during this past month.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 1: Because Tristan Peters and Louis on Helicunya. I know Trisan
Speaker 1: wasn't included in that trade, but looking a lot better
Speaker 1: than what we would be getting out of Luise Robert
Speaker 1: this year.
Speaker 2: So, speaking of Luis on Halacunya, maybe I'll send this
Speaker 2: one to you, Duke. This is from at Fuagman Fuagman
Speaker 2: on X. You guys need easier Twitter handles for me please.
Speaker 2: I get that a Kunia has some value in speed
Speaker 2: and versatility, but I feel that Peter's inevitable regression leads
Speaker 2: to a greater need for more outfielders. I would call
Speaker 2: up both Hayes and Prayer for Kunia and perez Antanachi
Speaker 2: can play backup infield. Do you see this as a possibility? Basically,
Speaker 2: I think they sent down Junior pres after the game today,
Speaker 2: I saw someone tweeted that it was on his transaction logs.
Speaker 2: What do you do at this point duke your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a difficult crunch that we've kind of kind
Speaker 1: of been dealing with for most of the year, and
Speaker 1: I think Tristian Peters has covered up a lot of it.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I feel like it's a touchy subject to try to
Speaker 1: talk about Tristan Peter's inevitable regression because we've kind of
Speaker 1: everyone's kind of been riding the high of it. You know,
Speaker 1: he's got the great story, the former Savannah Banana being
Speaker 1: named the All Star, Like, there's there's a lot there
Speaker 1: that would that's really endeared him to the fans. I
Speaker 1: was I've really been battling in my head for the
Speaker 1: probably the past month about do we do we move
Speaker 1: on from Tristan Peters while his value is at the
Speaker 1: absolute highest in one of these trades, to be able
Speaker 1: to get a more needed piece to this offense. Because
Speaker 1: while Tristan is a great player, great story, I do
Speaker 1: not necessarily want him to get traded. But it's something
Speaker 1: that's been kind of teetering around in my mind where
Speaker 1: it's like, if he if he regresses to the norm
Speaker 1: of what everyone thought a Tristan Peters was gonna be. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna there's not gonna be a lot there for us.
Speaker 1: You know, he's gonna be what the fourth outfielder at
Speaker 1: a certain point that you know next year if everything
Speaker 1: starts to kind of fall apart from him and then
Speaker 1: him kind of struggling here outside of the All Star
Speaker 1: break really hasn't helped anything either. So I think that's
Speaker 1: more the thought process you need to kind of keep
Speaker 1: in mind, because he would be a valuable piece, I
Speaker 1: think at the deadline, and you know it would be
Speaker 1: a shocker. Teams would be surprised that we did move
Speaker 1: a Tristan Peters with the first part of the year
Speaker 1: that he had. But you have to have a serious
Speaker 1: discussion if you think he's going to be a long
Speaker 1: the long term center fielder, and I don't I don't
Speaker 1: know how to answer that. I really don't like. I don't.
Speaker 1: If some of you have better answers to whether you
Speaker 1: think Tristan Peters is a long term answer in center
Speaker 1: field or not, by all means, bring it to me.
Speaker 1: But until then, I would say likely we stick with
Speaker 1: Tristan Peters in center obviously, and I don't think Acuni
Speaker 1: is going anywhere just because of how well he's done
Speaker 1: in the last in the last month or two, especially
Speaker 1: with how bad he started, he's really starting to thrive
Speaker 1: and what his role is. Got picked off on a
Speaker 1: really bad play today, so of course I have to
Speaker 1: bring that up. But overall, like he also made it
Speaker 1: to first base on a play that a lot of
Speaker 1: the lineup isn't going to make it to first base
Speaker 1: on that just automatically. Like the second you see at
Speaker 1: infielder stumble with the ball that Luis on Helacuna hit,
Speaker 1: you already know he's getting into first base, And there
Speaker 1: is a lot of value in that, especially in a
Speaker 1: pinch hitter type of role, where somebody who is very
Speaker 1: much a platoon type hitter is in a situation late
Speaker 1: in the game and you can get something out of
Speaker 1: Luisan Helacuna, which is something they've already started testing around with,
Speaker 1: especially with Andrew Bennett. Tendy. It's a good question, it's
Speaker 1: a really good question, and I'm interested to see kind
Speaker 1: of how that shift happens with what we're going to
Speaker 1: do in the outfield as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a lot a lot of moving parts to
Speaker 4: the question, and to your point, Duke. It's good because
Speaker 4: there are so many different ways they can do it.
Speaker 4: The Peter's question, I mean, yeah, I don't. I'm not
Speaker 4: yet convinced he's the long term answer, but I kind
Speaker 4: of want to let him show me that he Isn't
Speaker 4: you know what I mean? That he's earned more. I mean,
Speaker 4: if you're going to trade him, try to capitalize. That's
Speaker 4: one thing. But I don't think you need to be
Speaker 4: too worried about him falling off. I mean, he might
Speaker 4: fall off this season, but you don't need to have
Speaker 4: continuencies in place necessarily because there's so many different ways
Speaker 4: this could go right. I mean, Acunya to your point,
Speaker 4: I'm not just saying this to be nice to you.
Speaker 4: Like Acunya has value. Like you said, he's a great runner,
Speaker 4: he can play multiple positions. He's actually been hitting for
Speaker 4: the last month and a half. Like there's value when
Speaker 4: that player. You're not going to DFA that player because
Speaker 4: one of Everson Perera Austin Hayes needs to spot what
Speaker 4: you could do if you really want to get creative
Speaker 4: and you love Peerra and Hayes is I'm not saying
Speaker 4: I want them to do this, but they were both
Speaker 4: kind of the lefty Masher prototype at least, I mean
Speaker 4: Hayes maybe a little bit more, since he's not as
Speaker 4: athletic or good defensively as Pereira. What you could do
Speaker 4: is Randall Gritchik has not really been that great over
Speaker 4: He has like a four forty oh ps, I want
Speaker 4: to say, over the last month, and it's a small
Speaker 4: sample because he's a short side platoon guy. But if
Speaker 4: you really trust Hayes and Pereira, that could be the switch.
Speaker 4: As Junior Perez has already gone or already been optioned,
Speaker 4: so we don't know the corresponding movie yet, but you
Speaker 4: could maybe trade Gritchik instead of trading, know, making a
Speaker 4: more bold move like a Tristan Peters or an Akuna
Speaker 4: or whatever. That's an option the White Sox have. I
Speaker 4: don't think they're going to do it, but there are
Speaker 4: a lot of different things they could do. I mean,
Speaker 4: maybe Colson Montgomery if the back is bothering him or something.
Speaker 4: You know, he's falling ball off his shin. If that
Speaker 4: keeps happening, he doesn't eye ol stint. You don't have
Speaker 4: to reinvent the wheel. You could just move my drafts
Speaker 4: short temporarily and it's Nachia to a second and great,
Speaker 4: now you have an open outfield spot for somebody like
Speaker 4: Hayes or Perera to play in or Gritchick to play
Speaker 4: in every day. So they have flexibility and there's really
Speaker 4: not a wrong answer. It's just a matter of who
Speaker 4: do they believe in more. I think when when you're
Speaker 4: talking about a Hayes or a Carrera to some extent
Speaker 4: in Acuna too.
Speaker 2: Perera is such an interesting case too, because like he
Speaker 2: really hasn't hit them well this year, Like I don't know,
Speaker 2: I'm not breaking down the door to make room for him. Personally,
Speaker 2: I think Hayes is a veteran you know what you're getting.
Speaker 4: Is what it is.
Speaker 2: But because it's kind of the same way with Richick, right,
Speaker 2: like none of them have been like you can't move
Speaker 2: this guy. I think this plays into I think playtime
Speaker 2: at playtimes six one six four. I also asked this
Speaker 2: on Twitter about Pereira and Hayes's trade value. These questions
Speaker 2: were kind of related. I don't think they have trade value,
Speaker 2: to be honest, but I also don't know how much
Speaker 2: value they have to the white sex. So you have
Speaker 2: like three or four guys that maybe do the same
Speaker 2: thing earlier this season two we talked about with Acunya.
Speaker 2: I was like, you know, you can dfam at this point,
Speaker 2: this was back when he had like a four hundred ops, Like,
Speaker 2: you can dfam and keep him in the organization because
Speaker 2: it's too early for teams to want a speed guy.
Speaker 2: Now that's not the case. So you're you're keeping Akunya
Speaker 2: because he's number one, been better, but number two he
Speaker 2: serves a legitimate purpose for you down that down the line.
Speaker 2: So I don't know with it does really come down
Speaker 2: to your point, Nick, with Pereira, Hayes and Richick, who
Speaker 2: do you like the best. I think they'll probably air
Speaker 2: towards Pereira being younger, but he's been hurt so much
Speaker 2: and there's nothing. I know, he had a couple of
Speaker 2: good games, but I'm not trying to find playing time
Speaker 2: for him. I don't know. It's a difficult question.
Speaker 1: I also think it can't be discounted that there is
Speaker 1: a good chance the White Sox are trying to keep
Speaker 1: Antonacci in left field long term, and they're trying to
Speaker 1: kind of get him to learn that position and really
Speaker 1: stick with it because he has he'll have the occasional
Speaker 1: moment where like he misreads the ball. I saw a
Speaker 1: lot of people giving him flack in Cleveland over over
Speaker 1: that air when we barely had grass to play on.
Speaker 1: I think this isn't a situation, This isn't Andrew Vaughn
Speaker 1: in leftfield. Sam is far more capable of a fielder,
Speaker 1: and potentially that could be his spot. Like I, we're
Speaker 1: still we still have a while to go before we're
Speaker 1: going to see some of these you know, thirty short
Speaker 1: steps that we've brought, that we've drafted or brought in
Speaker 1: that will end up getting moved to somewhere in the
Speaker 1: outfield or unless we decide to make an outfield move
Speaker 1: in the offseason. I don't see any reason why to
Speaker 1: move Sam out of left field. Ain't like any point
Speaker 1: in the upcoming future. And I wouldn't be thrised if
Speaker 1: the Socks have already kind of started to be like, hey,
Speaker 1: really learn left field.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they don't really have much coming up the pipeline
Speaker 3: in terms of outfielders, So I kind of agree with
Speaker 3: you on that, Like, I think that they want him
Speaker 3: penciled in at left field because like, you don't have
Speaker 3: much else coming up anytime soon. That's also another reason
Speaker 3: why I don't think they're gonna trade Perera those because
Speaker 3: Gritchick and Hayes they're off the team next year regardless
Speaker 3: where Pereerra still has some team control. So even if,
Speaker 3: like maybe he's not the best contributor right now, I
Speaker 3: think that is going to play a factor in it,
Speaker 3: like filling out next year's step chart, like you at
Speaker 3: least can have him in competing for a spot already
Speaker 3: versus Hayes.
Speaker 1: And Gritchi Kor are going to be on the open
Speaker 1: market for the record, and I know he's played well. Sorry, Nick,
Speaker 1: I forget grid Jack's on the roster for large portions
Speaker 1: of the time. To be honest, I love it when
Speaker 1: I love it when it reminds me because I'm like, man,
Speaker 1: this guy killed Flapty.
Speaker 4: But eh, yeah, when we don't when we don't face
Speaker 4: the lefty starter for a while, I totally get what
Speaker 4: you mean, like you kind of forget he's there. But
Speaker 4: I think we're facing two out of four lefties and
Speaker 4: against the Yankees, so we'll see some of him this week,
Speaker 4: he would think. But yeah, on the the left field
Speaker 4: point for Antonaci, I think is a good one. Totally
Speaker 4: agree that he's more capable than vaugh and can learn
Speaker 4: the position. And also what we haven't said but I
Speaker 4: think deserves to be said, is Tase Midroff has been
Speaker 4: so good at second that it's almost like, I don't
Speaker 4: everyone's still always like, oh, what money were going to trade?
Speaker 4: Mindrophe if so many infielders who got to trade and
Speaker 4: trade and trade. He's the seventh best second basement in
Speaker 4: baseball this year on Fangrafts four. Like he's he's a
Speaker 4: legitimately good player. He has no real weaknesses than the
Speaker 4: lack of power, and he still has enough power to
Speaker 4: keep the outfield honest, unlike a Nick Madriugal. So I mean, yeah,
Speaker 4: moving at Nachi back to second could make sense in
Speaker 4: a world where mind draft isn't there where you make
Speaker 4: him like utility player. But he's like at two and
Speaker 4: a half wins above replacement this year and we still
Speaker 4: have sixty games left in the season. That's a player
Speaker 4: I want to build a round. I even sound thrown
Speaker 4: in in some like Mason Miller discussions or like you know,
Speaker 4: hypothetical trades, and it's like, we got six and a
Speaker 4: half more years of my draft, Like that's that's valuable.
Speaker 4: That's more valuable than a lot of people he's being
Speaker 4: put in the trade talks with. So sorry to go
Speaker 4: on a tangent, but yeah, I think I like Antonachi
Speaker 4: in left field actually long term, I think the bat
Speaker 4: plays there too. I wouldn't be surprised in Michael, maybe
Speaker 4: you can if you have thoughts on this, feel free
Speaker 4: to share. I wouldn't be surprised if Bonhamer doesn't stick
Speaker 4: in the infield, just because I mean he averages like
Speaker 4: an error every two and a half games or something
Speaker 4: like that. But I don't know where he would go though,
Speaker 4: because like center field would be tough.
Speaker 2: Maybe a corner.
Speaker 3: Well, I've thought about this a lot actually, and like, no,
Speaker 3: he's not a short stop. I think like the White Sox, No,
Speaker 3: he's not a short stop. I mean, the the obvious
Speaker 3: move should be the third base, but like you probably
Speaker 3: have one or one of Rock Schaallawski or Coulson probably
Speaker 3: penciled into your long term third baseman and then moving
Speaker 3: you know, Nicol Vargus over to first base with Marikami
Speaker 3: dhing So, like, where does that leave Bonhamer? Which is
Speaker 3: another reason why I'm not sold that he should be
Speaker 3: untouchable because there's not a clear spot for him personally.
Speaker 3: I think maybe right field could be a spot for him,
Speaker 3: move move a Montgomery over to center field potentially, if
Speaker 3: you know Tristian Peters doesn't stick there.
Speaker 1: That's just I trust me.
Speaker 3: I've been doing this brand exercise for a while trying
Speaker 3: to figure out where some of these guys fit in,
Speaker 3: and right field kind of is the one that I
Speaker 3: keep going back to. But like, that's not just a
Speaker 3: clear fit. He still us to learn how to play
Speaker 3: the outfield, which granted, that's why you draft shortstops because
Speaker 3: they can usually play anywhere in the field, which I've
Speaker 3: had to reiterate to a lot of people, But like
Speaker 3: there is still learning curve that goes with that. So
Speaker 3: it's it's a good problem to have having all these
Speaker 3: you know, puzzle pieces trying to figure out where they
Speaker 3: fit in. But like Chase my draft taking that step
Speaker 3: up this year does complicate Bottomer's future and even Billy Carlson's,
Speaker 3: Like I don't know specifically where the white socks are
Speaker 3: going to have them penciled in for the for the future.
Speaker 1: You know, Michael, I do share your pain about shortstops.
Speaker 1: And having you explain to people why teams always draft
Speaker 1: shortstops drives me. It's like, have you ever played did you?
Speaker 1: Did you play any form of baseball? You always put
Speaker 1: the best field there at shortstop every single time without fail. Also,
Speaker 1: and uh, last, I know you're gonna have another question here,
Speaker 1: but Michael, do you remember who was on this podcast
Speaker 1: who just really did not kind of thought Chase my
Speaker 1: draft was just kind of a throw into that trade
Speaker 1: did and really it wasn't wasn't too high on him
Speaker 1: now to get a really really low ceiling.
Speaker 2: Wait, did you say that?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: You said that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, me, yes, you It sounds like Michael said it
Speaker 2: down I thought you were talking about Michael said to Live,
Speaker 2: I remember.
Speaker 1: About me.
Speaker 2: I'll have to look back. I don't know. I probably
Speaker 2: wasn't high on him. My agree, I probably liked him.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I like guys that walk, and I
Speaker 2: like guys that.
Speaker 3: Walk ividly remember talking about how he's probably going to
Speaker 3: be more of a depth player than a starter.
Speaker 1: Or so I thought that was directed towards me. So
Speaker 1: myself then I I misremember then maybe it was just
Speaker 1: me and Nick that were high on in my draft.
Speaker 2: But uh, yeah, or whatever, I'm out of, just so
Speaker 2: fans know I'm out of like pre asked questions for
Speaker 2: anyone who sent those in. So first of all, thank
Speaker 2: you to everyone who did those. I have a few
Speaker 2: other one if there are more in the chat, if
Speaker 2: you guys want to add some, we'll answer those as
Speaker 2: we come towards the end here. I do have one
Speaker 2: more from one of our guys, but I will say
Speaker 2: a couple things. Number one, if you have questions, throw
Speaker 2: them in the chat now, we'll keep an eye on it.
Speaker 2: Number two, we'll get to our question from Brett. But
Speaker 2: number three, Michael, I meant to ask this earlier. Do
Speaker 2: you feel like I might have missed this? Do you
Speaker 2: feel like Braden Montgomery can play centerfield too? He's been
Speaker 2: awesome and right I wouldn't necessarily want to move him.
Speaker 2: But as you're thinking about the question of like trying
Speaker 2: to like I brought up Joe at all. For example,
Speaker 2: if he wanted to get a corner outfielder or an
Speaker 2: outfielder that could hit left handed pitching, obviously a Dalle
Speaker 2: can't play center. Can Montgomery play center? Do you think?
Speaker 2: Or is it something where it's like I could is a.
Speaker 3: Stretch of a his best fit is in right field.
Speaker 3: They played him a good amount in center field, though,
Speaker 3: like coming up through the miners, Like, I think that
Speaker 3: they trust him enough that, like, if that's where things
Speaker 3: had to play out, he could probably handle it. He's
Speaker 3: still much more your prototypical right fielder though, so like,
Speaker 3: if they can keep him in right field, I think
Speaker 3: that's ideal, But you don't really have a center field
Speaker 3: solution if Tristan Peters doesn't stick, Like Tristan Peters might
Speaker 3: still stick, like I don't want to give up on him,
Speaker 3: especially after the season he's having. I have some concerns
Speaker 3: that I also share with the rest of you about
Speaker 3: his long term outlook. But he might still be that answer.
Speaker 3: But if he's not, I think that's probably where they
Speaker 3: would go first is moving Montgomery to center seeing how
Speaker 3: he plays there, because again, he got a lot of
Speaker 3: runway there in especially double A and triple A. So
Speaker 3: I could see that definitely being an option.
Speaker 2: Makes sense. I was just curious. More so, it's like
Speaker 2: I want to put together an article our question from Brett.
Speaker 2: I will continue to go through these Marlins have lost
Speaker 2: twelve in a row and have certainly changed their fate
Speaker 2: and how they might approach the deadline anyone of interest there.
Speaker 2: Do you think it might have changed their fate? Do
Speaker 2: you think they'll still kind of sell off or do
Speaker 2: you think, hey, it's they might just not do anything.
Speaker 2: But basically Marlin's intrigue at all. It's a team we
Speaker 2: haven't talked about at all. I don't think.
Speaker 3: I mean there's if they were going to be reasonable
Speaker 3: about their asking price with him, which they haven't been
Speaker 3: in years past. I would love Sandy L. Contra in
Speaker 3: this rotation. I think he fits really well. I think
Speaker 3: he's again the thing that I keep going back to
Speaker 3: is you need an upgrade over Kay and Fetti. I
Speaker 3: think he absolutely clears that he's got another year under
Speaker 3: contract after this year, and he's such a good innings
Speaker 3: year that I think that would really benefit this pitching
Speaker 3: staff as a whole, especially benefiting the bullpen. Like that's
Speaker 3: a fit that I really like. But they've never been
Speaker 3: reasonable about their asking price for him. They've always just
Speaker 3: like asked for asked you to sell the farm for him,
Speaker 3: and like he's he's not an ace, like he had
Speaker 3: some ace level, you know, years back in the early
Speaker 3: twenty twenties, but like, he hasn't been that recently, so
Speaker 3: it depends on what they would actually want for him.
Speaker 3: But if they're going to be reasonable, that's where I
Speaker 3: would start.
Speaker 2: That comes back to the question we talked about with
Speaker 2: like peripherals versus reality.
Speaker 4: It does. And the thing without contract too, is that
Speaker 4: he even in a I mean a quote unquote down here,
Speaker 4: he's still like a serviceable startup pitcher. He still leads
Speaker 4: the league, gettings pitched, and for a White Sox team
Speaker 4: that's constantly asking the bullpen to come out in the
Speaker 4: fourth and fifth inning, that alone is he was just
Speaker 4: for getting your reliever, even if you don't trust him
Speaker 4: in the playoffs. Getting your believers fresh for the playoffs
Speaker 4: so that they're not you know, walking into a playoff
Speaker 4: series with their arms already falling off would have a
Speaker 4: lot of value, I think. So I agree with Michael
Speaker 4: that historically they've been very you know, a little pie
Speaker 4: in the sky. Let's stay about the asking price. But
Speaker 4: from a pure fit standpoint, I love the fit. I
Speaker 4: just don't know, and to be honest, I wasn't thinking
Speaker 4: they were going to sell. I know, like Brett said,
Speaker 4: they're on this massive losing streak, which I didn't see coming,
Speaker 4: so kind of unexpected.
Speaker 1: Overall, I would say instead of Sandy L. Contra and
Speaker 1: it's it sucks because he just got onto the IR
Speaker 1: or the I L But I really like my Max
Speaker 1: Mayor and the rotation. Big fan of what he's done
Speaker 1: this year. I can be honest and saying that he's
Speaker 1: helped me win parlays, so that plays a big role
Speaker 1: in it as well. But as far as like pitching
Speaker 1: strikeout overs, this guy just shoves very good picture. This
Speaker 1: is his first year where he's really been competitive in
Speaker 1: the rotation. It's complicated because he's in the IL situation,
Speaker 1: but he's an even all star. Would really like that
Speaker 1: as well. If Miami's willing to do a full send, so.
Speaker 2: I would cost you a pretty funny that's like your star.
Speaker 2: And with Schultz in that conversation, you're you're giving up
Speaker 2: the six years of Schultz for the three years of
Speaker 2: Meyer for example. That's that's exactly where you start getting
Speaker 2: into those types of conversations as well.
Speaker 1: But low key, I'm open to that. I'll be honest. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as big of a Schultz guy as I am. If
Speaker 1: if it's sagas Max Mayor, I'd find a way to
Speaker 1: be fine with it.
Speaker 3: I did mention Noah Schultz as a potential trade possibility
Speaker 3: in my recent article. I specifically mentioned that like it
Speaker 3: would there's next to no scenarios where that's possible, Max Mayor,
Speaker 3: that one, yeah, I could, I could get behind that one.
Speaker 3: That might be something that could even intrigue the.
Speaker 1: White Sox a little bit.
Speaker 3: It'll never happen, but like that's one of those few
Speaker 3: scenarios where like, okay, like if like a team's asking
Speaker 3: for Schultz for this player, you at least have to
Speaker 3: have the conversation.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, to me, it's even better. It would be
Speaker 4: even better than like a Logan Web or any pretty
Speaker 4: much any other starting pitcher. Then we've discussed other than Schoogle,
Speaker 4: which isn't happening. So yeah, I agree with you guys there.
Speaker 4: But while we've been talking, actually there was one rumor
Speaker 4: that came up from Jim Bowden, who he has his
Speaker 4: own podcast. Now I know he used to do with
Speaker 4: The Athletic and a couple others, but on this podcast,
Speaker 4: apparently he and his co host are reporting that the
Speaker 4: Mets are shopping their catchers Francisco Alvaress whom we talked about,
Speaker 4: not so Louis Torrens, and he said, watch out for
Speaker 4: the White Sox on Torrens. I'm told they're engaged with them.
Speaker 4: So how do you guys feel about that? Michael U
Speaker 4: semed to have some thought.
Speaker 3: I've been looking at him. Actually I like that a lot.
Speaker 3: He's been a pretty solid catcher, and correct me if
Speaker 3: I'm wrong, but I believe he's under contract for pretty
Speaker 3: cheap for one more year after this year. Two. That's one,
Speaker 3: Like he's been a rock solid catcher, like splaiting time
Speaker 3: with Alvarez, much better behind the plate than Alvarez, and
Speaker 3: he's not a world beater at the plate, but like
Speaker 3: he's good enough. Like that, that's one that I would
Speaker 3: really like.
Speaker 2: That's that kind of helps me with the question. And
Speaker 2: I've asked a couple of times, like what do the
Speaker 2: Socks want out of a catcher? Do they want a
Speaker 2: game manager, someone who elevates them defensively, which they've been
Speaker 2: terrible at, or do they just want a bat and say, hey,
Speaker 2: we're tired of having a black hole in this line?
Speaker 2: Whoever was in White Sox three asked that question about like,
Speaker 2: are we fine keeping a black hole. Let's at least
Speaker 2: upgrade the defense. If that's true, that might trend towards
Speaker 2: You're less about the Stevenson's of the world and the
Speaker 2: Jonah Hims of the world, and you're looking at a
Speaker 2: Torrents who's, yes, by all metrics, incredibly strong defensively, but
Speaker 2: doesn't really swing at too well with the bat. All right,
Speaker 2: let's just continue to get away with not having that.
Speaker 2: That would be interesting to me. It would signal the
Speaker 2: answer to that question. I keep asking, like, what do
Speaker 2: you want? Do you want a defense guy or a
Speaker 2: bat first guy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I can't speak for Chris Gotzer will benable on that,
Speaker 1: but you can find a lot of defensive catchers out there.
Speaker 1: We need, we need something offensively out of that position,
Speaker 1: in my opinion at this point.
Speaker 2: So we'll take a couple of questions from the chat
Speaker 2: and then we'll round it on out here and du
Speaker 2: can take us out. I saw one question about Chilowski
Speaker 2: that I thought, Michael, you might be interested in any
Speaker 2: chance he finds some time in Birmingham this year, what
Speaker 2: do you think the plan is for him with the
Speaker 2: idea of the hope that he comes up at some
Speaker 2: point in twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to rule out Birmingham this year. I
Speaker 3: think it's I wouldn't expect it. I think more than
Speaker 3: likely he starts at Birmingham next year. I think the
Speaker 3: goal with getting him signed so quickly is that he
Speaker 3: can get a couple tune up games in Arizona to
Speaker 3: start before that season ends, because that season ends incredibly
Speaker 3: quickly after the draft, which is one of the many
Speaker 3: reasons why I hate the timing of the MLB draft.
Speaker 3: But that's a whole other conversation we can get into.
Speaker 3: But I think he's gonna spend a few games in Arizona,
Speaker 3: probably go to Winston Salem, and I think probably stick
Speaker 3: there if for no other reason than they're probably going
Speaker 3: to be a playoff team and you can get some
Speaker 3: extra games in a playoff setting for Hya Winston Salem,
Speaker 3: so I could see them wanting to keep him there
Speaker 3: just to get a little bit of extra time. Again,
Speaker 3: I won't rule out double A. I'd be a little surprised.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be shocked, but I think more than likely
Speaker 3: he's gonna end the year in HIE Winston Salem start
Speaker 3: next year in Birmingham.
Speaker 2: That was at Baseball Toss. By the way, I forgot
Speaker 2: to add that I don't hate that idea of just
Speaker 2: it's not even slow playing it either. Like slow playing
Speaker 2: it is like, oh yeah, sitting high a I'd prefer
Speaker 2: not to move it that fast, if it's my personal opinion.
Speaker 2: But I know there's things they want to do mechanics wise.
Speaker 2: I mean, they talked about I think we've talked about
Speaker 2: it before on the show the extended lead arm. It's kind
Speaker 2: of like that arm bar type thing, and they talked
Speaker 2: about that. I think it was in the Jesse Rodgers
Speaker 2: article where they were going back and forth like emer
Speaker 2: sin Er Chalowski. I think stuff like that'll be easier
Speaker 2: to fix when you don't have to worry about getting
Speaker 2: ready for a game every day too, So that.
Speaker 3: It really is like getting that inside look that was
Speaker 3: such a good read. If you haven't read that yet,
Speaker 3: I encourage you to go back and read that. That
Speaker 3: was an awesome article Getting an inside look in the
Speaker 3: White Sox war room.
Speaker 2: One other question I'm seeing here. This comes from Unlock
Speaker 2: three D three three. It's kind of something we had
Speaker 2: talked about earlier. But I'm gonna you could have just
Speaker 2: said unlocked, unlocked three, don't do things live everybody, Yeah,
Speaker 2: unlocked thirty three. Geez god, sorry, I'm dumb. AnyWho. He
Speaker 2: was talking about the fact that guests there's the rumor
Speaker 2: that he might not trade any of the top ten
Speaker 2: prospects whatever, and the idea of not giving up the
Speaker 2: farm sure, but mentioned Billy Carlson specifically. I guess the
Speaker 2: way I'm going to phrase this question is more about
Speaker 2: Carlson and why it feels like everyone's willing to give
Speaker 2: him up in potential trades, and Michael kind of lean
Speaker 2: back to you on that. I guess, Duke and Nick
Speaker 2: to you as well. Do you feel comfortable with the
Speaker 2: idea of, like, yeah, if they were going to give
Speaker 2: up a bigger name, Carlson is fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean so, I was on this podcast before the
Speaker 3: draft last year being a massive Billy Carlson guy, and
Speaker 3: I was ecstatic when they did end up taking him
Speaker 3: with the tenth pick last year. But it feels like
Speaker 3: he's been destined to be a trade candidate since they
Speaker 3: drafted him, just because we're the hell are you gonna
Speaker 3: play him like it? I just don't see a spot
Speaker 3: long term for him, and he has value, Like he
Speaker 3: makes too much sense to be a big time trade
Speaker 3: ship for this team as someone whose primary source of
Speaker 3: value is his ability to play shortstop at a high level.
Speaker 3: But Colson, I mean, I know it hasn't looked as
Speaker 3: good recently, and I wonder if maybe there's something going
Speaker 3: on with his back or I don't want to speculate,
Speaker 3: but like, he hasn't looked as good defensively recently, but
Speaker 3: like overall, he has been a good defensive shortstop. This year,
Speaker 3: Rockchalowski was one of the best defensive shortstops in college baseball.
Speaker 3: You still have Kleb Bondmoor, who is technically shortstop, even
Speaker 3: though I don't think he's gonna end up their long term.
Speaker 3: There's not really a spot for Carlson. And he could
Speaker 3: play anywhere in the diamond. I fully believe he could
Speaker 3: successfully move anywhere in the field and just right off
Speaker 3: the bat be amazing at it. But that only brings
Speaker 3: so much value, like when you have guys that are
Speaker 3: pretty much penciled into every position, Like I don't think
Speaker 3: it makes sense to hold on to him for too long.
Speaker 4: I would.
Speaker 3: I think he's probably better off. I don't even know
Speaker 3: if he'll be at this deadline or over the off
Speaker 3: season or maybe even next year, but at some point
Speaker 3: I think there's gonna need to be a decision made
Speaker 3: about who has to get moved, and he's the most
Speaker 3: likely candidate to me.
Speaker 1: You know, Michael, if I heard you for a company,
Speaker 1: I would hire you as the guy to break bad
Speaker 1: news to people because you started, you started so good
Speaker 1: or you know, talking about how excited you were about him,
Speaker 1: and then you're just yeah, but you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: getting tough. I guess uh. And that's honestly, it was
Speaker 1: a perfect breakdown of it. I think with really like
Speaker 1: all these short steps we do have in the system
Speaker 1: right now, it just keeps taking me back to, like,
Speaker 1: what is our long term plan in center field? Who
Speaker 1: can who can play there? Who do we have currently
Speaker 1: in the prospect pool? Who is has the best shot
Speaker 1: to be our long term center fielder? And if you're
Speaker 1: willing to go out and sign a good you know,
Speaker 1: good side, good side, good sized market center fielder this offseason,
Speaker 1: which is hilarious because we're we're Chicago White Sox fans,
Speaker 1: But is that the route you want to take? Do you?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm just because if we have every
Speaker 1: if we have every spot penciled in and we're dead
Speaker 1: serious about opening the window, then they should all be available.
Speaker 1: But if they have one of these guys kind of
Speaker 1: penciled in where they're like, you know, I think this
Speaker 1: guy could actually look really good in center, that'd be
Speaker 1: the untouchable one. But outside of Chris Getz's office, it's
Speaker 1: going to be hard to find that answer that question.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and Billy Carlson is the one guy. Yeah, I'd
Speaker 4: said the one guy in the entire system where it's like,
Speaker 4: he's not the one I'm moving, He's the one. He's
Speaker 4: so good defensive there should be so good defensively. He's
Speaker 4: the one I would potentially be moving other people for.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, I should clarify when I say moving, I
Speaker 4: mean moving to a different position, not moving.
Speaker 1: To a different team.
Speaker 4: When it comes to trading him, I actually agree with
Speaker 4: Michael that he seems to be the odd man out.
Speaker 4: But to that point, the timing is what's interesting, because
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say you're selling low on him right now.
Speaker 4: He's having a fine season, even though it's been interrupted
Speaker 4: by injury, and he's back now of course, But I
Speaker 4: wouldn't be surprised if at this time next year, Billy
Speaker 4: Carlson is like, maybe not a Caleb Bonamer level prospect,
Speaker 4: but still viewed as a better prospect than he has
Speaker 4: now because the defense is what it is. But they've
Speaker 4: unlocked something with a swing by that he's seen as
Speaker 4: a more higher ceiling player than he was when he
Speaker 4: was drapped. I would not be surprised if that were
Speaker 4: the case, and then next year at the deadline or
Speaker 4: in the winter whenever it is, that's when you can
Speaker 4: really strike when the iron is hot and get something
Speaker 4: a lot better. That's just my two cents. I kind
Speaker 4: of believe in the idea that they will unlock something
Speaker 4: more with his bat because I have a lot of
Speaker 4: faith in the White soxs that in development these days,
Speaker 4: So I would be a little upset to trade him now,
Speaker 4: although I would understand it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the early signs with this bat, by the way,
Speaker 3: have been good. Like he struggled his first month of
Speaker 3: pro ball, but like after that, before the injury, he
Speaker 3: was really picking things up, and then he's actually been
Speaker 3: hitting really well since he got back from that injury.
Speaker 3: So like whatever adjustments they've already made with him, that's
Speaker 3: already panning out, and that's why he was a top
Speaker 3: ten pick was because he was probably imib ready defensively
Speaker 3: out of high school. That's how good he was with
Speaker 3: the glove. But he also does have legitimate upside at
Speaker 3: the plate, and they're already starting to unlock that. So
Speaker 3: I agree, like his air was pointing up and do
Speaker 3: you sell that now if he can get you a
Speaker 3: readebt rs, I'm open to that, but like you might
Speaker 3: get better value for him if you let him play
Speaker 3: a full season.
Speaker 2: First, I will kind of close my final thoughts here
Speaker 2: and then pass it back to Duke to bring us
Speaker 2: to a close here. This has, first of all, been
Speaker 2: an awesome episode. The chat you all have been incredible.
Speaker 2: Hopefully we got some most of your questions, a lot
Speaker 2: of comments coming in quite often nothing I have a
Speaker 2: concern with more with that obviously, just more so it's
Speaker 2: hard for me to keep track, so if I missed something,
Speaker 2: I apologize. The second thing I'll say is kind of
Speaker 2: my closing thoughts on this question as well as all
Speaker 2: of them. When we talk about the amount of shortstops
Speaker 2: that are in the White Sox system, I remember not
Speaker 2: too long ago when in the last rebuild they had
Speaker 2: too many outfielders for the spots and what are they
Speaker 2: going to do with all these guys? And none of
Speaker 2: them made it except for Robert. And that's where my
Speaker 2: opinion of if there are certain guys you can move,
Speaker 2: move them now when you've got this team where it
Speaker 2: is ahead of expectations. If you've got some pieces you
Speaker 2: can move, move them now, because you never know what
Speaker 2: a development looks like long term. Yes, the difference with
Speaker 2: infielders is a lot of times you can move them
Speaker 2: to the outfield and you're fine. That's why it's a
Speaker 2: little bit different. But we've been here before. I would
Speaker 2: love to see the White Sox kind of take what
Speaker 2: they've done a great job building and find ways to
Speaker 2: supplement it. Knowing that, Nick, to your point, I have
Speaker 2: faith in what this development team can do on the
Speaker 2: offensive side, especially Let's see if they can be advantageous
Speaker 2: with how they move some guys as well and keep
Speaker 2: others and continue to develop them. So but now, seriously,
Speaker 2: awesome stream with everyone who was in the chat. You
Speaker 2: guys were awesome back and forth. Like I said, I
Speaker 2: couldn't follow everything, but I appreciate everyone throwing their thoughts
Speaker 2: in and I hope we got to almost all of
Speaker 2: your questions and thanks to everyone who sent them in
Speaker 2: ahead of time as well. That was awesome too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, before we close out, I just want to I
Speaker 1: want to do a shout out to my boy, are
Speaker 1: the one probably the one Socks on thirty fifth fan
Speaker 1: in Texas, Zach Hill, for sending me questions. Zach. As
Speaker 1: you've probably realized at this point, all your questions got
Speaker 1: answered because other people ended up asking them, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to shout you out because you're my boy. But anyway, No, seriously,
Speaker 1: everyone in the chat has been great. I got a
Speaker 1: lot of entertainment reading you guys go back and forth.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of really good, good ideas in
Speaker 1: here too. Never would have thought when we started this
Speaker 1: that we would have had a full blown center field discussion,
Speaker 1: which I actually really appreciate because it's been kind of
Speaker 1: keeping me up at night probably the last couple of
Speaker 1: months here. So yeah, always appreciated, always appreciate all the fans.
Speaker 1: But I think with that, ladies and gentlemen, that's all
Speaker 1: we have this week for the Socks on thirty fifth podcast.
Speaker 1: Also Joe did pop into the chat and say, Michael,
Speaker 1: this was your twenty sixth appearance on the podcast. I
Speaker 1: knew it was in the twenties, so apparently you can
Speaker 1: only make you can make a first impression twenty six times,
Speaker 1: so until with you, that'll be twenty seven. Be sure
Speaker 1: subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and anywhere
Speaker 1: else to hear your podcast. Also sure check out the
Speaker 1: website sucks on thirty fifth dot com as while selling
Speaker 1: us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at socks on thirty fifty.
Speaker 1: Stay up to date with YO Chicago White Sox. This
Speaker 1: has been Duke Coughlin joined by Jordan Losowski, Nick Gower
Speaker 1: and Michael Sorrow. We'll be back as we cover another
Speaker 1: week of White Sox baseball. Uh, thank you and got
Speaker 1: socks and shout out to John Striffin your first calling, Uh,
Speaker 1: your call on Moon's first home run was fantastic.
Speaker 2: Go socks. Thank you boys, and thank you to the
Speaker 2: chat again and everyone who sent in questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, THO sucks the Socks