Trading Q vs trading Sale

[ron883]

I have been debating the pros and cons of trading these guys. Getting rid of both would make the staff very ugly. I think keeping one ace is a good idea. Who would you trade? Sale has greater value in a trade IMO, but they are very similar in terms of quality and worth. Will Q's game age better than Sale's? Judging by their builds and stuff, that is Reasonable thought. I honestly think you trade Sale. Boston would have been perfect for that pitching prospect they just traded and moancada/benintendi + more. A dynamite pitching prospect and hitting prospect is a must if you trade either IMO.

 

 

 

All things given, who would you trade and why?

 

 

[Dunt]

Tough to say, there are a lot of positive and negatives to weigh. Sale has been the better pitcher throughout his career, but Quintana has an extra year of control and a cleaner health bill. I think it all comes down to what you are offered or either and whichever you get closest to market value for, you move. I think either should bring 2-3 legit pieces for the future.

[SCCWS]

I have been debating the pros and cons of trading these guys. Getting rid of both would make the staff very ugly. I think keeping one ace is a good idea. Who would you trade? Sale has greater value in a trade IMO, but they are very similar in terms of quality and worth. Will Q's game age better than Sale's? Judging by their builds and stuff, that is Reasonable thought. I honestly think you trade Sale. Boston would have been perfect for that pitching prospect they just traded and moancada/benintendi + more. A dynamite pitching prospect and hitting prospect is a must if you trade either IMO.

 

 

 

All things given, who would you trade and why?

 

Two guys on the same team for 3+ years. Sale is 71-43 and Q is 41-42. Now GM's know Q for some reason gets lousy run support. But two pitchers on the same team with that disparity does not equate to equal quality and worth. Q is lucky to bring back 75% of what Sale would.

 

[knightni]

I don't see how any team can give fair value for either of them. Both are under very friendly contracts and neither are in their prime years yet. I don't think that you should trade them at all. You've got Sale, Q, Rodon, Fulmer right now. You're set for pitching for the next 4-5 years. How many other teams can say that?

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I say the Sox should try to extend Sale and Q again. See if they would take Danks type money. I know that would be a HUGE underpayment but another 4 years for each for $60-75M with no-trade options would be great. It would be a long shot but they have both seen what happened to Danks and they have to see all the Tommy Johns going on. Maybe they bite.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I don't see how any team can give fair value for either of them. Both are under very friendly contracts and neither are in their prime years yet. I don't think that you should trade them at all. You've got Sale, Q, Rodon, Fulmer right now. You're set for pitching for the next 4-5 years. How many other teams can say that?

 

True enough. You need a Shelby Miller type return and possibly more since I highly doubt Sale or Q ends up pitching like Miller did and then gets sent back to the minors.

 

The only thing I'd disagree with you on is that these are their prime years. When you pitch like they have they last 3 years and have never gone under the knife I don't see how their futures can get much better than their present .

Edited July 21, 2016 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[TheFutureIsNear]

I don't see how any team can give fair value for either of them. Both are under very friendly contracts and neither are in their prime years yet. I don't think that you should trade them at all. You've got Sale, Q, Rodon, Fulmer right now. You're set for pitching for the next 4-5 years. How many other teams can say that?

 

Their "value" isn't helping this team win and there's no help coming from the minors. We need to figure out how to get 4-5 good young position players infused into this team, and like it or not Sale and Q represent the only chance of getting that

[GreenSox]

The better decision is whichever player yields the greatest excess in talent versus his talent as a pitcher.

Pushing one or the other on the trading block isn't the way to go.

Be open to trading anyone for sufficient overpayment. Not sure whether the FO is up to the challenge that requires flexibility and finesse.

 

I tend to agree that it's unlikely that either of those yields a sufficient overpayment; largely because part of their value, low contract, isn't of great value to most contenders (it might be to, say, the Astros and they might be willing to pay for it in prospects).

 

But Frazier would have some value; maybe even Lawrie, who's an okay player, but the Sox certainly need to be willing to part with him (they could probably get the same thing out of Saladino).

Shields (it would be nice if he pitches well tonight) and maybe even Gonzales might be of interest to contenders who need a 5th starter.

Edited July 21, 2016 by GreenSox

[Chicago White Sox]

Trade both of them or trade neither. Stop half-assing it, this team isn't winning anytime soon without both of them, so why hold onto just one?

 

The good news is we have some interesting, high-upside arms in the system. If we go full-rebuild, we can give Fulmer some additional seasoning in the minors next year, can try developing Burdi as a starter, can give Adams a full year in AA, and take our time with Hansen. Those four plus Rodon is a nice starting point towards building a quality rotation and they should all be ready by 2018 hopefully. And that doesn't include anyone you get in the firesale or potentially draft with a high pick this year.

 

The real concern is on the postion player side and that's what needs to be prioritized if we sell. Anderson is the only guy on the major league roster that you definitely keep and feel confident about building around. I think there's some hope for Saladino becoming a solid regular at 2B, but that's far less of a certainty. Eaton still has five years of control after this season, so an argument could be made for keeping him. But that's pretty much it. On the minors side, Collins looks like the real deal as a hitter, whether he ends up at catcher, 1B, or DH. After him is a bunch of question marks and guys a long ways away.

 

If trading Sale & Quintana can get you four elite hitting prospects (top 50) plus some other high-end talents, we can quickly rebuild this team in a couple of years. Obviously you have to get those deals right, but if executed correctly, it's probably our fastest route towards competing.

[hogan873]

I don't see how any team can give fair value for either of them. Both are under very friendly contracts and neither are in their prime years yet. I don't think that you should trade them at all. You've got Sale, Q, Rodon, Fulmer right now. You're set for pitching for the next 4-5 years. How many other teams can say that?

This is a good point. I think a knee jerk reaction is to trade one (or both) of them and stock the minors with young talent. But a rotation of Sale, Quintana, Rodon, and Fulmer is pretty damn good. My concern is that the Sox don't build a team around those guys to win. If the Sox do sell, hopefully they can off load some guys (Duke, Robertson, Melky) and get some potential back for them. They are going to have take this "going for it" mentality seriously soon if they want to use the likes of Sale and Quintana to make a run at the post season.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm typically all for moderation, but this is definitely a case where if you trade one, you also trade the other. They are both tremendously valuable assets if your team uses them as an opportunity to save money to spend elsewhere on MLB talent; their value is wasted on a rebuilder. You can get mediocre "veteran presence" elsewhere if the players don't have to be good.

 

The idea of moving one for MLB hitters as a means of distributing talent more evenly is a nice thought, but we don't have the pitching depth to remain competitive in that scenario. We'd just be filling a huge hole by creating another huge hole.

 

That said, I STILL think both these guys are staying here until at least the 2017 trade deadline. The roster is aligned very well for a "last hurrah" next season.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Eminor3rd

[FT35]

I'd love to keep both because I believe having both gives us the best chance to contend in the years we're supposed to be rebuilding for now.

 

If someone wanted to overpay, I'd part with Q before Sale because Sale has become the face of the franchise. You want all his prime years to be here. ALTHOUGH...something to keep in mind, Sale has been very vocal at times with team matters. He's gone on some public rants about management decisions...makes me wonder if it's because they are like family and he knows that it won't effect their relationship or if there's really conflict between them.

[Panerista]

I say the Sox should try to extend Sale and Q again. See if they would take Danks type money. I know that would be a HUGE underpayment but another 4 years for each for $60-75M with no-trade options would be great. It would be a long shot but they have both seen what happened to Danks and they have to see all the Tommy Johns going on. Maybe they bite.

Not sure why Sale in particular would want to play his prime years for a bad team.

 

This type of thinking is a pipe dream.

 

I'd love to keep both because I believe having both gives us the best chance to contend in the years we're supposed to be rebuilding for now.

 

If someone wanted to overpay, I'd part with Q before Sale because Sale has become the face of the franchise. You want all his prime years to be here. ALTHOUGH...something to keep in mind, Sale has been very vocal at times with team matters. He's gone on some public rants about management decisions...makes me wonder if it's because they are like family and he knows that it won't effect their relationship or if there's really conflict between them.

 

Quality starting pitching is causing some teams to lose their minds on the trade market. Teams would trade real, MLB ready talent to get an Ace starting pitcher like either of these guys. The White Sox are no longer in a position where they should be thinking about yearly reload. It's eroding their team, their farm system, their wallets, and their fanbase.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Deadpool

[GreenSox]

I'm typically all for moderation, but this is definitely a case where if you trade one, you also trade the other. They are both tremendously valuable assets if your team uses them as an opportunity to save money to spend elsewhere on MLB talent; their value is wasted on a rebuilder. You can get mediocre "veteran presence" elsewhere if the players don't have to be good.

Trading both means a complete teardown. I'm not convinced that's necessary.

I'm not convinced this roster is set up for on last hurrah in 2017...well they could say it is, but the results will be no different.

If you trade Q, you're gambling on Fulmer replacing Q; and if it doesn't work, you still got a fair return for Q. I think the gamble is a better bet than the gamble that this team, as constructed, will contend next year (even with the addition of some bat that Hahn would probably make).

 

Now it would help if Rodon would get it together.

I so, they'd have a rotation of a 1, 2 3s, and 2 5s. Not ideal, but not terrible if you have a decent O and play impeccable D. No depth though; they could make another move in offseason to bring a 4/5 in.

 

One step back for two steps forward.

 

You could also do the same thing with Eaton, but he isn't in as high demand this year.

Edited July 21, 2016 by GreenSox

[Panerista]

Trading both means a complete teardown. I'm not convinced that's necessary.

I'm not convinced this roster is set up for on last hurrah in 2017...well they could say it is, but the results will be no different.

If you trade Q, you're gambling on Fulmer replacing Q; and if it doesn't work, you still got a fair return for Q. I think the gamble is a better bet than the gamble that this team, as constructed, will contend next year (even with the addition of some bat that Hahn would probably make).

 

Now it would help if Rodon would get it together.

I so, they'd have a rotation of a 1, 2 3s, and 2 5s. Not ideal, but not terrible if you have a decent O and play impeccable D. No depth though; they could make another move in offseason to bring a 4/5 in.

 

One step back for two steps forward.

 

You could also do the same thing with Eaton, but he isn't in as high demand this year.

This post would be appropriate if this team were remotely good. They're not.

 

Their can't be a "last hurrah" if there was no "first hurrah".

[FT35]

Not sure why Sale in particular would want to play his prime years for a bad team.

 

This type of thinking is a pipe dream.

 

 

 

Quality starting pitching is causing some teams to lose their minds on the trade market. Teams would trade real, MLB ready talent to get an Ace starting pitcher like either of these guys. The White Sox are no longer in a position where they should be thinking about yearly reload. It's eroding their team, their farm system, their wallets, and their fanbase.

 

 

Sale and Q are real MLB ready stars. I agree with you that teams are losing their minds...but what does that mean if we deal our 2 aces? It would cost us everything of value that we got FOR THEM to replace them when we are in a position of contention! And we better hope that those prospects we trade for GET US to a position of contention WITHOUT starting pitching! So it becomes a matter of considering Sale and Q a part of the future or not. In 3 years when all our newly acquired position player talent from our fire sale this year makes it big and they all become all-stars capable of carrying a team without starting pitching...who will pitch? How will we reacquire 2 aces (who we would have had under control STILL), when the price is as high as it is now (and sure to go higher by the time we need these guys)!? If you go the free agent route, you're rolling the dice on a Shark-type collapse, and you're likely paying $30M/year on that chance--now multiply that all by 2 and there is a lot of risk in replacing these 2 players. It may be decades before we have 2 aces under team-friendly affordable control like this again! As much as I like the idea of a rebuild--I think you rebuild around your biggest strength--even though your biggest strength carries the biggest trade value.

[GreenSox]

As much as I like the idea of a rebuild--I think you rebuild around your biggest strength--even though your biggest strength carries the biggest trade value.

They've been trying to do that, and we've seen the results.

So how do you do that? Trade Eaton, Lawrie, Frazier and Robertson? It could work although you'd really have to hit on 2 OFs, one of whom is skilled at getting on base (a long term issue with this team). But, why not? If it doesn't work, complete the sell-off next year. maybe through Jones in there...he should be good for a Vogelbach.

Trade our decent prospects for more veterans? That's risky, unlikely to work, and it will kill the future.

Edited July 21, 2016 by GreenSox

[FT35]

They've been trying to do that, and we've seen the results.

So how do you do that? Trade Eaton, Lawrie, Frazier and Robertson? It could work although you'd really have to hit on 2 OFs, one of whom is skilled at getting on base (a long term issue with this team). But, why not? If it doesn't work, complete the sell-off next year. maybe through Jones in there...he should be good for a Vogelbach.

Trade our decent prospects for more veterans? That's risky, unlikely to work, and it will kill the future.

 

 

OR...make 1 change and try their luck with a new manager and see if a new culture can bring out the best in our players???? Ha!

[Quin]

Trade both if you trade one.

 

Q for a King's Ransom

Sale for an Emperor's Ransom

[Panerista]

Sale and Q are real MLB ready stars. I agree with you that teams are losing their minds...but what does that mean if we deal our 2 aces? It would cost us everything of value that we got FOR THEM to replace them when we are in a position of contention! And we better hope that those prospects we trade for GET US to a position of contention WITHOUT starting pitching! So it becomes a matter of considering Sale and Q a part of the future or not. In 3 years when all our newly acquired position player talent from our fire sale this year makes it big and they all become all-stars capable of carrying a team without starting pitching...who will pitch? How will we reacquire 2 aces (who we would have had under control STILL), when the price is as high as it is now (and sure to go higher by the time we need these guys)!? If you go the free agent route, you're rolling the dice on a Shark-type collapse, and you're likely paying $30M/year on that chance--now multiply that all by 2 and there is a lot of risk in replacing these 2 players. It may be decades before we have 2 aces under team-friendly affordable control like this again! As much as I like the idea of a rebuild--I think you rebuild around your biggest strength--even though your biggest strength carries the biggest trade value.

The White Sox can't rebuild the organization and keep Q and Sale. They will be late in their contracts by the time the theoretical good talent acquired in the draft arrives in Chicago. Trading both accelerates your rebuild to the point where in a few years this team could be young and watchable. If you fail to move Q and Sale, you will have NO young, controlled major league talent. When Sale walks, you don't have them and you're still unexciting and not very good.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Deadpool

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Initially I was in favor of dealing both, but I think I'd rather just see Q dealt for the time being . See what he can get and take it from there. I'd rather see the FO get had at the expense of Quintana than Sale if that's what it came to- which is not an unlikely outcome. It would sting less if they did.

[Panerista]

Initially I was in favor of dealing both, but I think I'd rather just see Q dealt for the time being . See what he can get and take it from there. I'd rather see the FO get had at the expense of Quintana than Sale if that's what it came to- which is not an unlikely outcome. It would sting less if they did.

If we're going to trade one, I'd trade Sale and his one year shorter contract. I still contend selling both is better.

[bighurt574]

I'd shop both and see what kind of offers I get, but my inclination would be to keep Sale and trade Q for a couple young everyday guys who could contribute by 2017. If nothing else, keeping Sale doesn't crater attendance. The other thing would be to keep both for a try in 2017 but then do a rebuild if that doesn't work out. Provided they stay healthy, they'll each have plenty of value a year from now.

Edited July 21, 2016 by bighurt574

[Balta1701]

I say the Sox should try to extend Sale and Q again. See if they would take Danks type money. I know that would be a HUGE underpayment but another 4 years for each for $60-75M with no-trade options would be great. It would be a long shot but they have both seen what happened to Danks and they have to see all the Tommy Johns going on. Maybe they bite.

I don't think anyone has replied to this yet, but let's answer this and I'm going to use Danks's number exactly. Assuming the options are picked up, Sale has $40 million over the next 3 years on his deal. If you tried to offer him 5/$60, you'd be asking him to commit to the following 2 seasons at $10 million per. Fair market value for those 2 years as of right now is >$30 million. If you offered Sale 5/$110 right now, while tearing up his deal as of the start of the offseason, he should still turn it down because he's a $200 million contract pitcher right now.

 

After this year, Jose Quintana has 4 years and ~$37 million remaining on his deal (some things kick in depending on where his arb status would have been). Offering him 5/$60 is adding 1 year at $23 million to his deal. I'd do that if he would and I think it would be silly for him to do that. He'll be 31 when his current contract ends, so if you start talking about adding >$25 million value seasons onto the end, that would be a sensible thing for him to accept.

 

I do wonder if we'll ever see a team that has a "Sale-like" pitcher start offering to just add $35 million guaranteed seasons onto that guy's contract one at a time every year he stays healthy to see what happens. Keeps FA multiple years away and loads up that contract more gradually. That would be a contract innovation I'd contribute.

[WBWSF]

1)Trading Chris Sale would be the biggest PR blunder since the White Flag Trade. It took years for White Sox fans to forget about that trade. Trading Quintana would also be a PR disaster. .

2) After starting off 23-10 this season, did anybody see this coming? It's obvious to most people that the White Sox are going to be sellers this year and not contend for the 2016 Playoffs.

Edited July 21, 2016 by WBWSF