Dam8610

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:06 PM) Q gets traded to a GOOD team, and he's their number 1? His numbers are going to be way worse. If you don't understand that concept you are clueless. http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/fip/ http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/era-fip-xfip/ http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/ Educate yourself, then come back to the conversation.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) I understand you, but let's assume with an actual second bidder that the astros would deal Musgrove, Martes and Tucker for Q. You have 2 near major leaguers there in Musgrove/Martes (musgrove is) The Yankees get involved but insist they need Frazier for next year but offer Gleybar Torres, Blake Rutherford, Andjuhar and Chance Adams Which would you take? Though inherently riskier, I would take Yankees package. I would also take the Yankees package there, but trade negotiations don't happen in a vacuum. I think that Yankees package would cause the Astros top go up to something more reasonable that might even be more worthwhile than that Yankees package, at which point you can either take that package or see if you can get the Yankees to budge on Frazier.

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:49 PM) He's a number 2. He wasnt even a number 1 on a bad team. Ever. Being a number 1, on a good team, is something Q hasnt even approached. Abreu and Ordonez get/got most of their "numbers" when their team is/was buried. Quintana has much to prove to ever be considered a 1. He wasn't a #1 on the White Sox because they also happened to have a Top 3-5 pitcher in all of baseball, his name is Chris Sale, you may have heard of him. Being the White Sox #2 behind Sale makes Q no less of a top 10 pitcher in all of baseball over the last 4 years, and if a top 10 pitcher in MLB isn't an Ace, I don't know what is.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:45 PM) I would for the right rookies and a ballers because I don't find that to be a helpful descriptor for the type of talent you are getting back. I value Torres much higher than Judge even though Judge made show last year. I get that the potential can be higher on the younger guys, but the bust rate is a lot higher. I'm not saying take a Judge over a Torres, that would be insane (incidentally, Judge is the type of player I could see the Sox FO falling in love with that they need to avoid like the plague). What I'm saying is if you're taking a Torres for a Q, that's not nearly enough and I'd rather have a Frazier than a Rutherford as the second piece so that we're not looking at extremely high bust rates on the whole return. Like it or not, someone who's made it to AAA while maintaining their prospect status is a lot more likely to give you a solid everyday contributor than the guy who may someday be a superstar, but is in A ball today.

QUOTE (almagest @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) I was expecting proposals like "We'll give them Texiera and Headley for Quintana, Robertson and Frazier" but those are all actually sane. They seem to be thinking the same as us - they've got a ton of hitting prospects and we have the pitching they used to have need. Yeah, a couple of them started at Torres + Frazier and said more would need to be added.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) MLB Network: "Quintana isn't an ace, he's a solid #2." I swear Quintana could be an All-Star for the next three years, win a Cy Young and 20 games and people would still go "Well, he's good but..." A top 10 pitcher in baseball for the last 4 years is a #2? Tough to be an Ace these days.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:37 PM) My problem isn't necessarily with a Torres/Frazier package, it's mostly how our hypotheticals throw in additional top 100 prospects like they are of little consequence. I think the above trade is closer to possilbe but it would not shock me if Frazier is one Yanks want to keep due to him being a reasonable bet for 2017. Would you trade Q for a bunch of rookie and A ballers? I wouldn't, too much risk.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:33 PM) Safe to say any of us would trade Robertson for Robles in less than a heartbeat straight up ALL THE TOP 10 PROSPECTS!

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:25 PM) Yes, 4 top 100 including 2 top 50 is an insane package. Per the bmags soxtalk-value-to-actual value formula, you take out the 2nd and 4th best player in that package and you are a lot closer to a trade. Sale netted #1 and #30, so 2 top 50 isn't out of the question, Q is nearly as good as Sale if hype is ignored and production analyzed. So, fine, how about Torres, Frazier, Andujar, Montgomery?

Deal starts with Torres for the Yankees. Torres, Frazier, Sheffield, Andujar certainly moves the needle more than what the Astros have offered to date.

QUOTE (striker @ Dec 18, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Jeff Sullivan's thoughts on Q to the Rockies. striker: Any scenario where White Sox can get both Rodgers and Dahl back from the Rockies for Quintana? Perhaps include Jones? Quintana + Jones for Rodgers, Dahl, Pint, Murphy + 3 other pieces. 10:29 Jeff Sullivan: Something built around Quintana/Jones and Rodgers/Dahl is not too lopsided either way. But I do hesitate to believe the Rockies would want to push forward like that, especially with Dahl lined up to help right away. I don’t know how much they’d believe Quintana would fit in that ballpark, and that would be a very heavy investment 10:30 Jeff Sullivan: If Colorado played elsewhere, the equation would be different. But Quintana in Coors could be a particular risk 10:30 Jeff Sullivan: He is, after all, mostly a contact pitcher If the Sox have to include Jones to get Dahl, I'd rather pursue a Rodgers/Tapia centered deal, maybe include a good arm and another bat with that.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Dec 17, 2016 -> 06:05 PM) Everyone have a great Easter today? Too busy celebrating independence day.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 04:51 PM) If we gut out the big league club (Q, Frazier, Abreu, Jones, Robertson, Melky), we'd have 10-11 guys in the Top 100, with 2 of the likely Top 5 (and Fulmer, Adams, and Burdi are firmly in the 100-150 range). While Frazier, Robertson and Melky will not likely to haul in any Top 100 prospects, our return would likely be a number of quality prospects from other org's top 10-20 list. When the dusts settles, the homegrown guys like Hawkins, May, Barnum, and Adolfo would not even crack our Top 30. Seriously, how many far systems in the past 10 years carry that kind of top end talent and depth? That's why if we don't end up with the best farm after trading all of those guys, I might just stop following this team. 10-11? By my count, trading all of those guys should net 12-15 top 100 prospects considering they have 5-6 now. I agree with the best farm statement, though.

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 17, 2016 -> 12:42 PM) Why do we have to read about the damn Cubs in every thread? WHO CARES about the damn Cubs. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 17, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) After the first week, the Sox play 44 of 66 games on the road. Good luck with that hot start. Yeah, looking at the first 30 games, they have 12 home games, 18 road games, 24 division games (which the White Sox struggled with when they had Sale and Eaton), 3 games @ Yankees, and 3 games @ Orioles. 10-20 seems a lot more likely than 20-10 given the schedule.

QUOTE (Bighurt52235 @ Dec 17, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) I guess I missed what happened to his 6/68 contract. He was allowed to, and elected to, opt out of the deal into arbitration once he became eligible.

Then I guess we could rule out the #1 pick and brace for the collapse.

QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 03:31 PM) If his catching was up too par is his bat far enough along to actually be in the bigs now? Just curious. He hit .258 with an .885 OPS in A+, which was, an aggressive assignment for him. That he was 1.5 years younger than average competition and had a 21.6% BB rate and over .200 ISO are both highly encouraging signs, while a 25.5% K rate is a cause for concern and makes his bat nowhere near ML ready. A 25% K rate in A+ would likely be much higher in MLB, not to mention the huge jump would likely destroy his development and turn him into a bad player. Right now, 2018 is an optimistic projection of him (unless it's late 2018), and 2019 is much more realistic. That said, a 21.6% BB rate and .200+ ISO as a 21 year old C in A+ are definitely signs to be excited about. If he can maintain anything close to those numbers while he cuts the K rate and improves his defense, he's going to provide the White Sox a huge leg up on this rebuild, as he would be a middle of the order bat at C, something that is nearly unheard of these days.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 02:00 PM) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the author didn't discount present value. $20 million of surplus value 5 or 6 years from now is not as valuable as $20 million in surplus value in years 1 and 2. No discount for PV or risk, which, if done, would make that offer from Houston as silly as we think it is. I think the best package the Sox can feasibly get from Houston (because they refuse to come off Bregman) is Reed, Tucker, Martes, and Stubbs. That gives you a power bat who had performed well at all levels until his first MLB stint, which may have been rushed, a good defensive catcher with a low K, high on base bat that has a non-zero chance of being a successful starter in MLB, and the very high ceilings of Tucker and Martes. That seems worth trading Q.

QUOTE (striker @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 10:51 AM) here is another good one. http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/12/16/13..._source=twitter Wow, people overvalue prospects. I don't like that that article doesn't take into account a very important economic concept while using the surplus value concept. This guy puts ZERO discount for risk on the Astros prospects. There should be a significant discount for risk on any prospect, at least 30%.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 09:24 AM) Yes, it is the .200 iso as a 19 year old. Edit: That plays shortstop He won't stay at SS in this organization, though. I'd be looking at him as a future 2B or 3B, depending on where they want Moncada.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) What's wrong with a Rodon-esque pitcher? His talent is absurd. I'd be for it if the pitcher is legitimately that good, and not just the best pitcher available. That said, with the talent that is in the system now, if they see a position player and pitcher as having pretty much equal value, I'd want the position player over the pitcher. With Q, Rodon, Giolito, Kopech, Lopez, Fulmer, Hansen, Dunning, and Adams, the White Sox have a lot of arms with high upside as starters at almost every level of the minors. In comparison, the hitting pool is very weak. Anderson, Moncada, Collins, Basabe, Call, Fisher are really about the only ones that excite me at the moment. Hopefully trades will net more hitters to become excited about, but I'd also like to see another bat or two who look like they could develop into franchise cornerstones.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 11:25 PM) Although I like the Astros top end package, getting Rodgers would be bigger than Tucker/Martes combined. Also, you can't honestly think that David Robertson is worth more than Andrew Miller, right? Robertson is coming off a down year with a much higher walk rate than his career average. Andrew Miller is one of the best pen arms in the game... Robertson doesn't even come close to that. I don't get the Rodgers hype, other than that he was drafted 3rd overall in 2015. He's not tearing the cover off the ball, and his K rate is high, though not alarmingly high, but with a mediocre BB rate. Is it the power? I guess a .200 ISO while more than 2 years younger than league average is impressive, but that still was done at low A ball. I'd rather take a chance on Reed rebounding, Stubbs's high walk, low K, reasonable power bat that played well at high A and AA against age appropriate competition at the premium defensive position, as well as the potential of Tucker and Martes rather than putting most of the value gotten back for Q into Brendan Rogers. I'll admit that the top end talent in the Rockies deal is better, and if they were willing to add Tapia, even if it meant Freeland became a different, less attractive piece, I'd probably like their deal more. As for Robertson, I'm not saying he's more valuable than either of the aforementioned players, but one netted 2 Top 100 prospects in all of baseball, with one being Top 20, and the other netted what may now be a Top 10 prospect in all of baseball, and both netted 4 total players. That's why I think Robertson is worth more than the proposed Nationals deal. Even being worth slightly less than them, he's worth more than that package.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 10:49 PM) The Colorado deal is about right minus a 4th prospect & the Nats package seems a bit of an overpay for Robertson. I'd rather deal with Houston if that's the best they can offer, unless they add a very worthwhile fourth player. Reed/Tucker/Martes/Stubbs is still my preferred package. Also, if Andrew Miller, who isn't even a closer, can net Clint Frazier, Justus Sheffield, and more, and Aroldis Chapman can net Gleyber Torres as part of a four player package, then Robertson is worth more than that.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 06:29 PM) Bleacher report suggested two deals for the sox Quintana to the Rockies for Rodgers, Hoffman and freeland Robertson to the nationals for Stephenson and severino Thoughts? Both are light.