Quintana Rumors: Round and round and round we go

[FT35]

Chapman and Miller got a lot at the deadline but Ken Giles and Kimbrel got a lot in the offseason and Thornburg just got a lot a few weeks ago.

 

I don't think it matters that much. Thornburg just netted a major league 3b and two prospects.

 

True...it can go either way--depends on if teams (who don't have a solid closer) who looking to contend early on think they can make it to the trade deadline without a closer. Obviously he would be worth more now to teams who are set up to contend from the get go (Nationals) and worth more at the deadline to those who come to realize they are in the hunt and just need a closer. If I were Washington, I'd be looking to get a deal done now--and have him available on Opening Day and not have to deal with a committee for 4 months and 6 other teams (and likely a higher price) come July 31st.

[steveno89]

True...it can go either way--depends on if teams (who don't have a solid closer) who looking to contend early on think they can make it to the trade deadline without a closer. Obviously he would be worth more now to teams who are set up to contend from the get go (Nationals) and worth more at the deadline to those who come to realize they are in the hunt and just need a closer. If I were Washington, I'd be looking to get a deal done now--and have him available on Opening Day and not have to deal with a committee for 4 months and 6 other teams (and likely a higher price) come July 31st.

 

We could take advantage of Washington's situation and dangle Robertson and/or Jones for a significant haul.

 

Washington is built to win now, and having a closer by committee approach could prove to be costly, plus the deadline cost could be huge given multiple suitors bidding.

 

White Sox can sit back and wait for the best possible offers, and if a team does not get desperate then just sit tight and wait. I set the price for Robertson high.

[Dam8610]

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.

 

[steveno89]

Yes, it is the .200 iso as a 19 year old.

 

Edit: That plays shortstop

 

Rodgers power is not just a projection, but a reality.

 

.281 avg - .342 OBP - .480 SLG - .821 OPS at age 19/20 in A ball is really good, especially for a middle infielder that arguably could stick at SS

 

Rodgers would start the season in high A Lancaster and possibly see the promotion to AA mid-late in the season if he does well

 

He is 2-3 years away from the majors, but the tools are their for him to be really good

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

 

We don't really know that. If he were to get him, he would be playing SS in the minors for a few years while we figure out where and Anderson and Moncada are best suited for. If those positions are SS and 2B, then great. Rodgers to third then. But ultimately I think Moncada ends up at third personally.

Edited December 16, 2016 by soxfan2014

[Bob Sacamano]

Not sure if this was posted. Was bored at work and Googled "Jose Quintana rumors" and came up with this article from yesterday. More of the same but oh well.

 

http://houseofhouston.com/2016/12/15/houst...s-top-priority/

[steveno89]

We don't really know that. If he were to get him, he would be playing SS in the minors for a few years while we figure out where and Anderson and Moncada are best suited for. If those positions are SS and 2B, then great. Rodgers to third then. But ultimately I think Moncada ends up at third personally.

 

None of us know Colorado's willingness to deal Rodgers, but we do know they badly need SP and bullpen help

 

I'd much prefer a package headlined by Rodgers than a Houston package centered around Martes/Tucker.

 

Rodgers has the potential to be a very good player and middle of the order bat (similar to Bregman)

[Bob Sacamano]

None of us know Colorado's willingness to deal Rodgers, but we do know they badly need SP and bullpen help

 

I'd much prefer a package headlined by Rodgers than a Houston package centered around Martes/Tucker.

 

Rodgers has the potential to be a very good player and middle of the order bat (similar to Bregman)

 

Agreed. Rockies seem to be in "go for it" mode with that offense (or at least should be). Maybe they're waiting a Trumbo or Encarnacion signing before focusing on starting.

 

Edit: I never honestly thought of them as an option for Q until they added Desmond.

Edited December 16, 2016 by soxfan2014

[steveno89]

Agreed. Rockies seem to be in "go for it" mode with that offense (or at least should be). Maybe they're waiting a Trumbo or Encarnacion signing before focusing on starting.

 

A Rodgers + Hoffman or Pint + solid third piece (I'm thinking Freeland as we could use a solid left handed prospect in our organization after loading up on righties)

 

If they balk at including Hoffman or Pint, I would ask for Rodgers + Tapia + Marquez + Freeland

 

Those are both acceptable packages for each side that could be considered win-win. Rockies get a #1-#2 starting pitcher under cheap control for the next four seasons, greatly adding stability to the rotation.

 

White Sox get a slew of quality prospects and continue the rebuild

[steveno89]

Agreed. Rockies seem to be in "go for it" mode with that offense (or at least should be). Maybe they're waiting a Trumbo or Encarnacion signing before focusing on starting.

 

A Rodgers + Hoffman or Pint + solid third piece (I'm thinking Freeland as we could use a solid left handed prospect in our organization after loading up on righties)

 

If they balk at including Hoffman or Pint, I would ask for Rodgers + Tapia + Marquez + Freeland

 

Those are both acceptable packages for each side that could be considered win-win. Rockies get a #1-#2 starting pitcher under cheap control for the next four seasons, greatly adding stability to the rotation.

 

White Sox get a slew of quality prospects and continue the rebuild

[FT35]

We don't really know that. If he were to get him, he would be playing SS in the minors for a few years while we figure out where and Anderson and Moncada are best suited for. If those positions are SS and 2B, then great. Rodgers to third then. But ultimately I think Moncada ends up at third personally.

 

I agree...keep him at SS till it's evident he will not play SS at MLB level (for whatever reason). I do think the Sox would prefer Moncada at 2B. For 1, 2nd base has been a revolving door since the days of T. Iguchi! From what I've read, that's his natural position and the move to 3rd was basically because he was MLB ready and Pedroia was still ahead of him. Kind of like the Trea Turner to CF move. Who knows though, athletes of that caliber are capable of playing whatever at a high level with enough reps--so that 3rd base door is still open.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

I agree...keep him at SS till it's evident he will not play SS at MLB level (for whatever reason). I do think the Sox would prefer Moncada at 2B. For 1, 2nd base has been a revolving door since the days of T. Iguchi! From what I've read, that's his natural position and the move to 3rd was basically because he was MLB ready and Pedroia was still ahead of him. Kind of like the Trea Turner to CF move. Who knows though, athletes of that caliber are capable of playing whatever at a high level with enough reps--so that 3rd base door is still open.

Some have speculated that Moncada could eventually end up in Centerfield.

[Bob Sacamano]

I agree...keep him at SS till it's evident he will not play SS at MLB level (for whatever reason). I do think the Sox would prefer Moncada at 2B. For 1, 2nd base has been a revolving door since the days of T. Iguchi! From what I've read, that's his natural position and the move to 3rd was basically because he was MLB ready and Pedroia was still ahead of him. Kind of like the Trea Turner to CF move. Who knows though, athletes of that caliber are capable of playing whatever at a high level with enough reps--so that 3rd base door is still open.

 

Oh I agree he will be at second this season and likely multiple seasons. I was just thinking he may out-grow the position and have to be moved to third base eventually.

[bmags]

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.

 

I think there is plenty of evidence that having multiple great shortstops is not a bad thing.

[Bob Sacamano]

I think there is plenty of evidence that having multiple great shortstops is not a bad thing.

 

Exactly. They're athletic and can transition to another position. Very good problem to have.

Edited December 16, 2016 by soxfan2014

[bmags]

Exactly. They're athletic and transition to another position. Very good problem to have.

 

It's much better than Multiple 1b or LFers.

[striker]

Not sure if this was posted. Was bored at work and Googled "Jose Quintana rumors" and came up with this article from yesterday. More of the same but oh well.

 

http://houseofhouston.com/2016/12/15/houst...s-top-priority/

here is another good one.

 

http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/12/16/13..._source=twitter

[steveno89]

here is another good one.

 

http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/12/16/13..._source=twitter

 

That article assumes that each of Musgrove/Martes and Tucker will be mlb contributors to a certain degree.

 

Three 2 WAR players do not equal the value of one 6 WAR player, as 6 WAR players are vastly harder to find.

 

That package really underwhelms me compared to the Sale and Eaton returns. If we don't get superior value we should hold out for better

[chw42]

That article assumes that each of Musgrove/Martes and Tucker will be mlb contributors to a certain degree.

 

Three 2 WAR players do not equal the value of one 6 WAR player, as 6 WAR players are vastly harder to find.

 

That package really underwhelms me compared to the Sale and Eaton returns. If we don't get superior value we should hold out for better

 

I hate using surplus value to evaluate prospects and just assuming they turn out to be competent. Especially when you are trading for an established player like Quintana who is more likely than not to give you 15+ WAR over the next 4 seasons. The reason why teams have given up multiple blue chip prospects for players like Quintana before is because prospects are a gamble. Maybe 1 in 3 good prospects turns into a good player.

 

Add in the fact that the Astros' window is the next 2 years and Quintana's surplus value is exponentially higher than Tucker + Martes.

[bighurt574]

Three 2 WAR players do not equal the value of one 6 WAR player, as 6 WAR players are vastly harder to find.

 

A good point, especially for a deep organization like Houston with plenty of other options to plug in to the lineup.

 

For the Sox the past few years, three 2 WAR players and one 6 WAR player might have been closer to equal. Position players at least.

[Dam8610]

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%.

[chw42]

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%.

 

To be fair, KATOH does take risk into account. But even then, I feel like it's somewhat optimistic. The hit rate on prospects isn't that high. Surplus value should also be looked at differently when your team is trying to compete the next two seasons and the guy you're trading for fills a huge hole on the team.

[bighurt574]

Right, I believe the risk is taken into account, but it still makes the prospect projections a lot more volatile than a guy with a five-year MLB track record.

 

A rebuilding team can afford to take on that volatility a lot more than a team planning to contend the next few years.

Edited December 16, 2016 by bighurt574

[steveno89]

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%.

 

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. I agree a further risk discount should apply to Tucker and Martes as Tucker has never played above A ball and Martes and never pitched above AA. Proven mlb talent should always come at a premium, and at age 28 it is wrong to assume that Quintana could not provide 5+ WAR seasons.

 

The past three years he has averaged 4.5 WAR per season. age 28-32 seasons are the peak of a players prime generally, right before a decline is expected, it's not crazy to think Quintana could produce 18 WAR the next 4 seasons, or perhaps more.

 

 

[bmags]

Add me to the list of surplus value being an overvalued indicator. I would welcome a report on these excess value applied retroactively to previous years of trades to see how accurate they would have been, and that should ultimately ignore performance of trade itself.