GGajewski18 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 James, also mentioned that his friend said that trading Mallex Smith was necessary and speculates a return could include 5 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:40 PM) Newcomb as the second piece would be bad As long as they hit another couple of position players after that, we could do worst than a hard-throwing, high ceiling lefty with a Jon Lester comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 09:50 PM) James, also mentioned that his friend said that trading Mallex Smith was necessary and speculates a return could include 5 players. Interesting. Necessary for reasons related to a potential Q trade or for other reasons? Also thanks for the info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBrave Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:45 PM) Yea I agree. The national prospect people either havent caught up on Acuna or have caught up on Acuna and just haven't communicated it yet. Acuna + Albies is in the neighborhood of Meadows + Bell value-wise right now. I was brainstorming earlier and came up with Acuna, Riley, Pache and Foltynewicz/Wentz/Toussaint (really impossible to know which of the top 8 or 9 Atlanta pitchers the Sox really like). How does that sound to you, the Braves fan? I honestly think current value wise it might be a bit light. Pache/Riley/Wentz may not be deemed valuable enough with such little track record. I think Albies still has higher value than Acuna, but it is closer than many realize. I can't see us getting Q without him as a headliner, although obviously I'd be pleased if we did. Don't think they will give up Folty though, the organization loves him and I'll be shocked if he doesn't start in the rotation. I'd say Albies,Newcomb,Riley, Touki/Wentz and then offer Garcia as an innings eater/flipable deadline asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBrave Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:50 PM) James, also mentioned that his friend said that trading Mallex Smith was necessary and speculates a return could include 5 players. That's interesting, wonder if you guys like the young lefty prospect we received? Klaw had him as the mariners #2. Prospect and a borderline top 100 guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Sox liked Ian Anderson before the draft IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBrave Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:50 PM) James, also mentioned that his friend said that trading Mallex Smith was necessary and speculates a return could include 5 players. Wow I'm jealous of your inside source! Thanks for sharing. I definitely think Garcia would be in any potential trade. We would need the rotation spot and he could potential bring you back a decent piece at the deadline. Not that I think he would be a valuable piece of the trade, just that he would be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) I'm sorry, I'm not interested in Albies, especially as a headliner. IMO there is no deal to be made with the Braves, because Swanson is obviously off limits and they don't have a headlining position player other than him. If a hitter is rated as having a 20 power tool, then they better have a 75-80 hit tool otherwise, IMO, they are a non-prospect. Albies has a 60 hit tool so I don't care that he's rated highly, I don't trust him. Just by reading his scouting report, his ceiling IMO is a utility infielder. Are you going to trade Q for that??? Swanson or no dice Atlanta. I hope Hahn thinks the same. Edited January 12, 2017 by Elgin Slim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) If you're the Braves, and your scouting is on point, aren't you thinking that giving all those prospects at least another year to "percolate" will give you even more weapons in your arsenal to trade from a year from now? Especially when there will more trade options on the table, as well as FA's available to use as leverage in trade negotiations? Is Q that compelling (compared to Archer/Gray) that you can't wait until at least mid-season and most likely into the off-season? The only reason for the "rush" is the belief that all those teams like the Astros, Pirates, Yankees, Rockies, Dodgers, etc., aren't willing to pay Hahn's price...and that a "slight overpay" (but not the Shelby Miller equivalent) would be warranted because of Quintana's more flexible contract for a "mid market" payroll team like ATL? STILL, in the first year of a new stadium, would the Braves winning 78 games vs. 68 games even make much of a difference financially? You can at least understand the argument (especially going by Hawks/Falcons/past Braves' attendance) that there's a NOT insignificant amount of pressure to be competitive for the second year in the new stadium...but why NOW? Edited January 12, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I would be very hesitant dealing with the Braves. First off, I don't get why they'd cash in prospects for a TOR starter right now unless they're trading guys they don't really believe in. The other problem is outside of Swanson & Albies, most of their attractive prospects are either pitchers (which we don't need) or positional guys years aways from contributing. Just doesn't make sense given our needs and timeline IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Username @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:55 PM) Interesting. Necessary for reasons related to a potential Q trade or for other reasons? Also thanks for the info! James' friend says that the Smith trade is related to a potential Q trade or other SP trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBrave Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 09:12 PM) James' friend says that the Smith trade is related to a potential Q trade or other SP trade. Guess other teams are interested in Gohara. Side note, feel like the M's were ripped off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con te Giolito Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 What about Frazier? I know there's only one more year on his contract but that Atlanta lineup, despite having Freeman, still feels a little light on power unless Swason cranks 20+ HR. Combine that with what seems like a glaring weakness at 3rd could there be mutual interest in packaging Frazier? Good clubhouse guy, solid defender, masher of baseballs...makes sense if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 09:28 PM) What about Frazier? I know there's only one more year on his contract but that Atlanta lineup, despite having Freeman, still feels a little light on power unless Swason cranks 20+ HR. Combine that with what seems like a glaring weakness at 3rd could there be mutual interest in packaging Frazier? Good clubhouse guy, solid defender, masher of baseballs...makes sense if you ask me. Atlanta trading for a rental doesn't make a lick of sense to me, but then again they traded for Jaime Garcia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 First of all, I don't have "sources" and have never claimed to. I have a buddy that lives in Atlanta with some contacts, agents and otherwise. He told me today that the teams have definitely been talking. He mentioned Albies and Newcomb specifically. Said Braves reluctant to part with Maitan. Also mentioned that he was told that trading Mallex Smith was "needed". Whether that means the Sox want Gohara, I have no idea. That's all I got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 09:06 PM) I'm sorry, I'm not interested in Albies, especially as a headliner. IMO there is no deal to be made with the Braves, because Swanson is obviously off limits and they don't have a headlining position player other than him. If a hitter is rated as having a 20 power tool, then they better have a 75-80 hit tool otherwise, IMO, they are a non-prospect. Albies has a 60 hit tool so I don't care that he's rated highly, I don't trust him. Just by reading his scouting report, his ceiling IMO is a utility infielder. Are you going to trade Q for that??? Swanson or no dice Atlanta. I hope Hahn thinks the same. This is crazy. One - that 20 has not been updated, they re-did team rankings but have not finished their player evaluations on mlb pipeline, you will se regrading. And what happened last year? Well as a 19 year old in AA he continued to rake and had a .145 iso. That isn't barry bonds, but it's an improvement over the 1 home run he hit over two years prior, and closer to a 35/40. It's also better than top prospects Nick Gordon and JP Crawford posted. Add to that he has a 70 speed tool that turns singles into double snad doubles into triples. He has a great 15% strikeout rate (as one of the youngest players in every league), he has a good walkout rate (again, as youngest player) and most of all has the scouting reports you love to see. High baseball IQ. Intense gamer. Does whatever team needs to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) Thoughts on something like Q and Lawrie for Albies, Acuna, Newcomb and Gohara? A strong yes for me, which usually means Braves are giving up too much Edited January 12, 2017 by fathom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:12 PM) First of all, I don't have "sources" and have never claimed to. I have a buddy that lives in Atlanta with some contacts, agents and otherwise. He told me today that the teams have definitely been talking. He mentioned Albies and Newcomb specifically. Said Braves reluctant to part with Maitan. Also mentioned that he was told that trading Mallex Smith was "needed". Whether that means the Sox want Gohara, I have no idea. That's all I got. I was really confused by the way you started off, then I realized that you were the person soxpride was referring to as having talked to. Well anyway, thanks for sharing. Always fun to hear this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Probably mentioned above, but Cameron in chat said today that Glasnow is insufficient as a Q centerpiece: stuff not that good and major control problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:19 PM) I was really confused by the way you started off, then I realized that you were the person soxpride was referring to as having talked to. Well anyway, thanks for sharing. Always fun to hear this stuff. Me too...I was like.. "Wow, that is the exact same s*** that other dude said!" #toomuchbourbon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 #FAKENEWSHASINFECTEDSOXTALK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 It's Wednesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:21 PM) Probably mentioned above, but Cameron in chat said today that Glasnow is insufficient as a Q centerpiece: stuff not that good and major control problems. I think his opinion on Glasnow's stuff would put him in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerksticks Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:52 PM) I think his opinion on Glasnow's stuff would put him in the minority. Maybe he watches his starts too. Not just a few K highlights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:59 PM) Maybe he watches his starts too. Not just a few K highlights. You're right bro, I'm sure the scouts who have been raving about his stuff for years only watch the highlights. Same goes for the guys at Baseball America, mlbpipeline, etc. who follow prospects for a living and consider him a consensus top 15 prospect. Or the three GMs in a recent survey of 19 who voted him as the best pitching prospect in the game. But hey, you don't like the guy so whatever fits the narrative I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts