steveno89 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:55 AM) It's always been SS. Most pro baseball players have been a SS at some level. It's always been where you put your best player. I don't care what position a prospect plays at this point What we need to be looking for is talent above anything. Most SS could play OF, 2B or 3B if needed We are looking to improve farm system quality and depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:51 PM) Trading a guy who is an ace with 4 years of cost control left seems like a pretty risky proposition. I'm open to it, but Q is probably the last of all the guys I'd move. I'd move Eaton, Melky, Robertson, Jones, and Abreu first (again depending on value). I'm with you here. Better get a great haul if you're going to trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:00 PM) I'm with you here. Better get a great haul if you're going to trade him. Now is a good of a time as ever to get a big haul for Quintana Most experts seem to think the White Sox did really well in the Sale trade, now time to nail down the Q deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) I think the Nationals makes less sense than the Astros. Their 2-year window means Quintana's extra year of control isn't as valuable to them. Nationals also have a pretty solid/deep rotation already. I get their interest in Sale, but I'm not sure they'd raid the farm for Quintana. Seems like if you're already a playoff team (e.g., Boston, Washington), Sale is the guy you want for October. If you're not already a playoff team, Quintana might make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) Trading a guy who is an ace with 4 years of cost control left seems like a pretty risky proposition. I'm open to it, but Q is probably the last of all the guys I'd move. I'd move Eaton, Melky, Robertson, Jones, and Abreu first (again depending on value). I think all that hesitancy for the reasons you explain just walked out the door with Sale. If you can trade a potential year in and year out Cy young winner on a great contract then you can trade anyone. Its all about quality AND quantity now. No longer about how much each individual currently means to the team as its constructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:51 PM) Trading a guy who is an ace with 4 years of cost control left seems like a pretty risky proposition. I'm open to it, but Q is probably the last of all the guys I'd move. I'd move Eaton, Melky, Robertson, Jones, and Abreu first (again depending on value). It depends on the package that you get back. Q in '17 and Q in '18 - at a minimum - is irrelevant to the Sox next window of contention. In a best case scenario, Q gives you two years at the back end of his deal when the Sox are relevant, and the Sox contending in '19 is being really, really optimistic. The FA market for pitching this offseason is abysmal. Q may never have more trade value than he does today, and if you are getting offers back at that value, I think you have to move him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) I don't care what position a prospect plays at this point What we need to be looking for is talent above anything. Most SS could play OF, 2B or 3B if needed We are looking to improve farm system quality and depth Yes, they could, but for guys nearly ready, I don't want to pay the ss price for a guy I have to push off of ss. That's why I say I wonder if you target guys further away or at other, often less-costly positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) It depends on the package that you get back. Q in '17 and Q in '18 - at a minimum - is irrelevant to the Sox next window of contention. In a best case scenario, Q gives you two years at the back end of his deal when the Sox are relevant, and the Sox contending in '19 is being really, really optimistic. The FA market for pitching this offseason is abysmal. Q may never have more trade value than he does today, and if you are getting offers back at that value, I think you have to move him. Adding another haul of prospects with upside will go a long way towards helping this team compete in the future Our farm after dealing Abreu, Q, Eaton, Robertson, Jones, Cabrera could look completely different than it did a week ago With two more seasons of drafting, scouting, player development and free agency you could have a team ready to compete in 2019 / 2020 that is very exciting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 Q and Robertson to the Rockies could make some sense around a package of Dahl and Rodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSox Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:48 AM) So we just traded Sale for aobut half the guys people wanted. Take your Quintana trades and halve them, and add a deeply flawed bullpen pitcher. The flaw I see in this logic is that we as fans thought they'd get A bigger haul, which obviously proved to be unrealistic. The difference is, I haven't seen one knowledgeable analyst anywhere that says the Sox got shorted/got the bad end of this deal. Sure, maybe we should lower our expectations but to simply hold on to Quintana because they don't get exactly what fans expected seems a bit counterproductive for a rebuilding team that likely won't compete for 2-3 years. Also, this is not an attack on you. I've just been seeing this type of thing a lot since the Sale trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 3m3 minutes ago Word is CWS could be interested in P Martes and OF Hunter (and others) in astros talk for quintana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:31 PM) Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 3m3 minutes ago Word is CWS could be interested in P Martes and OF Hunter (and others) in astros talk for quintana Who is Hunter? Does he mean Tucker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) Who is Hunter? Does he mean Tucker? Surely he means Tucker No clue who Hunter is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Parque Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 I'd like to have Reed in a deal with Houston. Love to add some legit power to the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxnfins Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) Who is Hunter? Does he mean Tucker? One would assume so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) Who is Hunter? Does he mean Tucker? Either Tucker or Fisher I'm assuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsoxhurt35 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 I expect a Q deal to be done today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (Butter Parque @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:37 PM) I'd like to have Reed in a deal with Houston. Love to add some legit power to the lineup. Reed's value has taken a major hit in my opinion by striking out at a 34% rate (48 times in 141 plate appearances) and batting .164 in 45 games He was absolutely awful against lefties at the mlb level and is a below average defensive player Could he be a future DH? Possibly, but his mlb showing this year did significant damage to his prospect value. This season is make or break for him because if the bat does not play he has no defensive value or ability to play a position besides 1B or DH. Martes, Tucker and Reed would be a really interesting package, but I'm not sure if Houston would sell that low on a player like Reed who does have power if he can improve his contact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:46 PM) Reed's value has taken a major hit in my opinion by striking out at a 34% rate (48 times in 141 plate appearances) and batting .164 in 45 games He was absolutely awful against lefties at the mlb level and is a below average defensive player Could he be a future DH? Possibly, but his mlb showing this year did significant damage to his prospect value. This season is make or break for him because if the bat does not play he has no defensive value or ability to play a position besides 1B or DH. Martes, Tucker and Reed would be a really interesting package, but I'm not sure if Houston would sell that low on a player like Reed who does have power if he can improve his contact Reed is a perfect buy low guy for us. He's unlikely to get a shot in Houston anytime soon and I'm not sure dominating the PCL again is really going to repair his value. He makes a lot of sense as the third piece in Quintana trade for both sides IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeGone7 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:15 PM) Q and Robertson to the Rockies could make some sense around a package of Dahl and Rodgers. Far too much in all likelihood. If they're willing to entertain one of those for Q, I'd be all over the deal. Preferably Rodgers, but that is just me. Adding Robertson, who's value is pretty low right now, will not net you another player that caliber. I'm not saying Q isn't worth it. He is. But Sale was worth more, as well, and unfortunately this is where the market is. I liked the return on Chris. I think Hahn will hold firm to a similar price. But if those two weren't available for Sale, they won't both be for Q/DR. Now I think this Desmond to 1st base thing is partially a smokescreen to drive down the price on whatever they're considering at 1st. To me, it's a last resort. If you package Q w/anyone to Colorado, I'd say it is probably Frazier (or Abreu). At which point, I don't even respond if both of those two kids aren't in the deal. Not sure they'll bite but they certainly seem to be going for it and you cannot argue that Rodger's value is somewhat hurt by what is in front of him at the MLB level. If they can net a package beginning with those two for Q and whoever, I may be ok with it. Just Rodgers + more for Q would be nice. Unexpected though. I think everyone has individual trade value, but if it nets you two of them and more, I'll take my chances and increase our offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 George Ofman @georgeofman 4m4 minutes ago Sox and Nats talking Quintana/Eaton package. Let's we where this goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) George Ofman @georgeofman 4m4 minutes ago Sox and Nats talking Quintana/Eaton package. Let's we where this goes. Would have to have either Turner or their entire farm system right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) Would have to have either Turner or their entire farm system right? Not sure how this deal is possible without Turner, Giolito and Robles. Otherwise I want Ross, Giolito, Robles, Lopez and my pick of 5-6 other prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsoxfan Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 02:10 PM) Not sure how this deal is possible without Turner, Giolito and Robles. Otherwise I want Ross, Giolito, Robles, Lopez and my pick of 5-6 other prospects. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I hate hate hate the prospect of Giolito being a large part of any return. As the Fangraphs article stated, he was downright awful in the big leagues and had issues getting strikeouts in the high minors too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 01:10 PM) Not sure how this deal is possible without Turner, Giolito and Robles. Otherwise I want Ross, Giolito, Robles, Lopez and my pick of 5-6 other prospects. If you want 3 top 50 prospects and 7 other players, you didn't learn much yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts