Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 12:20 PM) Happy this trade didn't get completed. Why? Do you mind elaborating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 If the astros are worried about back end depth thats understandable so maybe do something like this: Q and Gonzalez for Martes/Tucker/Musgrove/Hernandez/Stubbs. Astros get a TOR ace, and a #5 that just put up over 2.5WAR and is super cheap, sox get two major league pieces that they'll likely stash at AAA to see what Avi/Tilson/Engel can do for half a season and a solid looking catcher in Stubbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 12:54 PM) He gave up like 5 good prospects for Ken Giles. And Ken Giles isn't taht good. That's the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) 3. Musgrove is a #5. QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 12:10 PM) You seriously can never have too much pitching. Pitching is also extremely expensive in free agency. Not all of our prospects will pan out, plus they can be used to trade for bats when the time is right Musgrove has the potential to be a very solid #3 or 4 starter with great control. He does pose some injury risk though. Clearly Bregman is not in the deal, but with that being the case the Astros can't be overly picky about prospects in order to get a deal done for Q I do think Musgrove might be who they do not want to give up in that package I think Musgrove has the stuff and ability to profile like John Lackey or our very own James Shields. Low 90s fastball with heavy sink a solid slider and good but developing change. He has a K/9 north of 7.5 nearly 8 and BB/9 of 2.3. Edited December 10, 2016 by beautox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:06 PM) That's the problem Why is that the problem? They have plenty of prospect depth from which to trade from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMule2545 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:09 PM) I think Musgrove has the stuff and ability to profile like John Lackey or are very own James Shields. Low 90s fastball with heavy sink a solid slider and good but developing change. He has a K/9 north of 7.5 nearly 8 and BB/9 of 2.3. I'm not doubting Musgrove is a good piece to get back at all. I should have specified that Musgrove is their #5 as currently sloted. Not a #5 potential-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:13 PM) Why is that the problem? They have plenty of prospect depth from which to trade from. I think he's hesitant to pull that trigger again. He really doesnt like trading prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 12:20 PM) Happy this trade didn't get completed. Yeah, if that is the deal, I'd rather keep Q. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) Yeah, if that is the deal, I'd rather keep Q. Any other cynics here think that the "rebuilding idea" and the two trades were just excuses to get rid of "perceived" problems in Sale and Eaton and the Sox are done trading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMule2545 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) Any other cynics here think that the "rebuilding idea" and the two trades were just excuses to get rid of "perceived" problems in Sale and Eaton and the Sox are done trading? No. Check out Hahn's quotes over the past 5 days. The quotes paired with the trades that have happened + the trades that are being discussed will tell you everything you need to know. I was one of the cynics before this week happened, but I'm convinced they're going full rebuild on dat ass. Edited December 10, 2016 by Ro Da Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macsandz Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:13 PM) Why is that the problem? They have plenty of prospect depth from which to trade from. Grammar, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) Any other cynics here think that the "rebuilding idea" and the two trades were just excuses to get rid of "perceived" problems in Sale and Eaton and the Sox are done trading? No chance. I would expect 4-5 more deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomPickle Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) Any other cynics here think that the "rebuilding idea" and the two trades were just excuses to get rid of "perceived" problems in Sale and Eaton and the Sox are done trading? I certainly hope that's not the case. The Sox don't have to trade Quintana since the Sox should hopefully be ready to compete before his contract is up, but there's no reason to hang on to Fraizer, Melky, Robertson, and maybe Abreu too. Sale and Eaton may be the only two major moves, but it shouldn't be the only two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macsandz Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) Any other cynics here think that the "rebuilding idea" and the two trades were just excuses to get rid of "perceived" problems in Sale and Eaton and the Sox are done trading? No, but it was a factor, for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) No. Check out Hahn's quotes over the past 5 days. The quotes paired with the trades that have happened + the trades that are being discussed will tell you everything you need to know. I was one of the cynics before this week happened, but I'm convinced they're going full rebuild on dat ass. I hope you're right and RH doesn't say at the beginning of the season that "we just didn't get the price we wanted for anyone else." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mataipaepae Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:40 PM) I hope you're right and RH doesn't say at the beginning of the season that "we just didn't get the price we wanted for anyone else." I worry that it was just about getting rid of the Laroche fan club that really stood up to management. Notice they were the first 2 to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunt Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:37 PM) No, but it was a factor, for sure. Do you think we see more this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 10, 2016 Author Share Posted December 10, 2016 Saw someone on Twitter saying that Buster Olney said that he could see the Rockies offer Rodgers/Tapia/Pint for Q and the Pirates offer Glasnow/Meadows/Bell or Newman. I'd take either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (mataipaepae @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) I worry that it was just about getting rid of the Laroche fan club that really stood up to management. Notice they were the first 2 to go. Why are you guys still worried about this? They are rebuilding. They want to lose 100 games this year. Hahn clearly said he wants to make 4-5 more trades. Stop worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) Saw someone on Twitter saying that Buster Olney said that he could see the Rockies offer Rodgers/Tapia/Pint for Q and the Pirates offer Glasnow/Meadows/Bell or Newman. I'd take either.... That Pirates package is completely unrealistic IMO. I actually thought the Pirates could be a sleeper for Q, but I don't see them giving up more than one of those guys in a package and that won't be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:02 PM) Why are you guys still worried about this? They are rebuilding. They want to lose 100 games this year. Hahn clearly said he wants to make 4-5 more trades. Stop worrying. Yup, it just so happens that several of these trades won't be completed until certain free agents are off the board. Jensen & Turner are really holding up the Robertson & Frazier markets. Once those guys sign, I think trades will materialize pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) Saw someone on Twitter saying that Buster Olney said that he could see the Rockies offer Rodgers/Tapia/Pint for Q and the Pirates offer Glasnow/Meadows/Bell or Newman. I'd take either.... Yes. To either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySox Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) Saw someone on Twitter saying that Buster Olney said that he could see the Rockies offer Rodgers/Tapia/Pint for Q. I'm still surprised we haven't heard the Rockies linked to Q. I would take this deal in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMule2545 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) I'm still surprised we haven't heard the Rockies linked to Q. I would take this deal in a heartbeat. It's my favorite potential deal as well. Rodgers is going to be a slam-dunk awesome Major League hitter barring injuries and would look great at 3B for us in a couple years. The Rox are said to be looking for a TOR starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:21 PM) It's my favorite potential deal as well. Rodgers is going to be a slam-dunk awesome Major League hitter barring injuries and would look great at 3B for us in a couple years. The Rox are said to be looking for a TOR starter. I'd add Jones to get Rodgers/Tapia/Pint/flier for Q. That'd be arguably better than the Sale deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts