bighurt574

It's been slow, but the free agent market has been pretty slow too. Not really just a Sox thing.

For a top prospect like Glasnow, scouts sure seem pretty split on him. If the Sox' scouts and coaches aren't sold, then he's not much of a headliner. Plain and simple. We're not just going by prospect rankings here. It's entirely possible the Sox just don't like him all that much. If the Sox value him as a top 10 prospect, I suspect a deal would probably be done by now.

The only explanation that makes sense is that Hahn got a package for Sale that warranted pulling the trigger (one that the industry has widely praised as a haul), and that he's yet to get such an offer for Q. Pretty simple. "Compromising" on the second or third piece in the deal, all while landing the #1 prospect in baseball, doesn't change that. In the end, Hahn's demands are pretty irrelevant. Depends what's on the table. QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 08:46 PM) Devers is clearly superior to Kopech as a prospect. Point is Hahn was willing to back off on his demands for Sale but not so with Quintana. And before anyone says "WELL WE DONT KNOW THE OFFER FROM LUHNOW"...yeah, we do know it. You can combine the reported Sox demand with the Rays offer and figure that the hangup is Joe Musgrove or (and I'm just assuming this because it makes sense) Bregman. If Hahn was willing to give up on Devers, a fringe top 10 overall prospect in the game, for Sale then why isn't he budging from Musgrove? Musgrove is good but he's not THAT good. The only explanation that makes sense is that there was extra motivation to deal Sale. Whether it was because of the jersey incident and LaRoche embarassment or them identifying a fatal flaw poised to torpedo Sale's career (this is actually plausible, Sale was frustrating to watch at times last year) I dont know, and I dont think anyone ever will exactly. NOT SAYING THE REBUILD IS A FARCE NOT SAYING THERE IS A CONSPIRACY Just saying have just been players valued more than others based on little, if any, apparent baseball merit.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 05:33 PM) It has been reported that Hahn's demand was Moncada+Kopech+Devers and Dombrowski refused to give that up. Hahn settled for Basabe and Diaz, which is a pretty huge downgrade from Devers at this point in time. And? It's a negotiation. You never get your first ask on a trade this big. That doesn't mean you "settled" or didn't have your asking price met. Since a deal got done, basically by definition, Hahn's price was met. And there sure seems to be a consensus that he got great value. Obviously not there yet on Q. No double standard.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 03:35 PM) I'm not asking anyone to sell me on the Boston players. What I am asking is if Hahn was so eager to trade Sale even if his price wasn't met why won't he do the same for Quintana? And why is everyone so willing to excuse this double standard? I mean I see a lot of people who say "well if they won't meet Hahn's price they should jus t keep him", but Boston didn't meet Hahn's price on Sale and everyone rushes to tell me how great that trade was. I want the Sox to do well, but I'm getting to the point where I have serious issues with how this rebuild is taking shape. There is no reason Melky, Fraz, Abreu, Jones, Robertson, Migo etc. should ALL be on the team to open the season. The "well the market for these guys hasn't developed" excuse doesn't work. A serious market has developed for Quintana but they're not trading him, multiple teams have been connected to Robertson but talks around him are dead (they should feel lucky to give him away to avoid paying him), Frazier and Melky both walk away for nothing in a year...I don't know. It's not even February yet so I'm not going to start assuming things, but I am going to ask questions about the motivations of the front office to move the players they did. Why do you assume Hahn's price wasn't met for Sale? Because we didn't get Betts/Benintendi or whatever crazy package we were asking a year ago? That's sort of silly. Boston agreed to include Moncada and that got the deal done. If another franchise is willing to give up a similar headliner for Q, a deal likely gets done.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) That's a good question to ask for all those so worried Q won't be worth anything if the Sox don't trade him in the next 24 hours. How much ddi the ultimate package for Sale and/or Eaton deteriorate by the White Sox not trading either of them a year sooner? I am with you, Sale's, I am not guessing much if anything at all, and Eaton's certainly went up. There is a limit on what teams will give up. TOR guys with 4 years or even 3 years of cheap control are hardly ever traded. One reason is because either teams don't have the prospects, or they have to give up so many. Q is in that boat. He will be at just about max price if they wait another year as long as he performs and is healthy. Yep. Diminishing returns with all those years of control. That fourth year should in theory be worth something extra, but if you don't like the packages on the table, it's sort of a moot point. Hahn has done a good job so far with the Sale/Eaton trades. Really no reason not to trust him at this point.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 05:11 AM) Vietnam is next! Going to be in Hanoi for a week then its back home. Machu Picchu is definitely on my list. Long time in Hanoi. Be sure to hit up Halong Bay if you can.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 05:16 PM) Im just as surprised as you. I like Gammons but I have a difficult time believing the Rays said no to that deal offer. These GM's aren't going by prospect rankings. It's entirely possible TB's scouts just don't like Tucker and/or Martes all that much.

He's a year away from commanding a big package, assuming he takes that next step this year. I'm fine taking that risk and building his value more. A year from now, we can reevaluate how he fits in our rebuild timeline based on how quickly our prospects are developing.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 02:19 PM) How in the world does Rodon have any where close to the value that Quintana has? He almost certainly wouldn't. If you're another team, you're basically just trading one risky asset (prospects) for another (young MLBer still figuring it out). Not sure that really makes sense. Unless another team is convinced Rodon is on the verge of being an ace and ponies up, Sox should hold him and build his value -- either to keep or trade down the road.

2018 is supposed to be a really strong draft for college prospects. 2017 wouldn't be a bad year to tank.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) I don't see the Sox wanted the major league guys. If they did, I would imagine that they would only want one of Baez or Schwarber, probably Baez, and would rather have other minor leaguers to get it done. Heck the Sox just gave up a guy with 5 years of control, I don't see getting two of those back versus guys you can basically squeeze seven years out of. If I had to put together what a deal should look like, it would be something like Jimenez, Happ, Candelario, Eddy Martinez, and Caratini to get a Q + Jones deal done. I'd take Baez, Jimenez, and a couple second-tier guys for Q. 5 years of control is perfectly fine. I'd sacrifice a year or two of control for a guy who has already shown he belongs on the big stage, compared to some untested prospect. We traded Eaton b/c we were able to turn him into 3 enticing pieces. Otherwise, he easily could have been part of the rebuild.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 01:30 PM) Pure entertainment: Would you trade (you personally) Quintana to Angels for the rights to Mike Trout for his 2019 and 2020 seasons? That's it! Four years of Q for two years of Mike Trout. Trout and Quintana would be on same team for two seasons. Seems like a no brainer -- especially with 2019/2020 matching up with when we could be competitive again. You're basically trading 4 years of a 4-5 WAR player for 2 years of a 9-10 WAR player (discounted a bit for the time delay). I'll take the elite guy, even for 2 years.

Depends what they can get, but I'm not sure trading Trout is going to magically rejuvenate the franchise. We at least had 3 elite pieces to move. They're a long way from contending either way. They may be better off just holding him to give the fans something to show up for. I assume any package would require a combo of young MLB talent plus prospects. You could certainly envision a team like the Cubs putting together some interesting proposals.

I'm not convinced we'd get THAT much more for 4 years of control vs. 3 years (or 3.5). Certainly not the same additional value as trading an elite pitcher with one year of control. There are diminishing returns on the back end. We shouldn't be greedy, but if the right deal isn't there, we can afford to wait.

It is hard to get full value for 4 years of control, IMO. There are some diminishing returns in there. Barring injury or slump, Q will demand a roughly similar package at the trade deadline or a year from now. It's just a matter of finding the right deal. No need to panic and cave in the next month if the right deal isn't coming along.

Some of these feel like Pit is giving up a lot. Could be getting additional pieces from either us or NY.

To state the obvious, we really need to start drafting and developing better, especially when it comes to position players. It's always frustrating to see all these well-stocked farm systems and then we have to give up a Chris Sale or Jose Quintana just to catch up.

QUOTE (TRU @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 06:35 PM) Not gonna lie, im starting to lean in that direction as well. Moncada, Giolito, Lopez are all guys who could not only start on the OD roster, but will more than likely make it there this season.. If Quintana gets traded, its definitely a full on rebuild.. but man, there is a lot of evidence to suggest, at the least, that they got rid of the two problem children Unless the Sox are flat out lying, they've made pretty clear they'll be giving these guys plenty of time to develop in the minors. And if this wasn't a rebuild, they would have seemingly been more active on the free agent market.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) Ha, I have been thinking the same thing, especially with Benintendi, Devers and Robles. The Sox have made the best decisions they can based on the information they have now, so you can't fault them if the "other guys" pan out and Moncada, et. al. bust. But it will be fascinating to follow! Of course, we have no idea how many of these "other guys" were even available in trade.

I'd target position prospects all things being equal, but if we really like some other pitcher, I don't see the issue. Besides failing and/or trades, it wouldn't be crazy if someone ended up in the bullpen too.

Using the Sale deal as a rough template, you'd think a Q deal with the Pirates would look something like: Glasnow or Meadows (the Moncada piece) Bell or Newman (the Koepech piece) and a few second tier guys Q isn't quite Sale, but Glasnow/Medows aren't quite Moncada either.

I don't know, if Houston had offered Bregman, it probably would have been in our interest to leak it.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 18, 2016 -> 08:15 AM) Would you take Bregman, Tucker, Reed, one of their highly ranked pitching prospects and one more prospect for both Quintana and Frazier? No chance Houston does that. If they were to cave and include Bregman, they're not going to include Bregman AND a bunch of top prospects like he's some sort of throw in. It would likely be an either/or scenario. Including Frazier doesn't really change that. If Houston would part with Bregman, Sox would be lucky to get one other top prospect along with him and a few lower level guys. That's basically the Sale deal. We're not going to top that for Q (and Frazier).

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 11:26 AM) That's the faulty logic in the article The chance that Quintana delivers on his surplus value over the next 4 seasons is way higher than the chance those three prospects pan out and produce. That's true, but the flip side is that the prospects are more likely than Quintana to exceed their projected surplus values. There's more upside and downside risk with prospects, and the projected surplus values, at least in theory, are supposed to take that into account. So you basically get some middle number somewhere between best and worst case scenarios. The range for a Quintana is much narrower.