Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (striker @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:00 PM) Q will go to the Yankees. They have a ton of prospects they can include without Torres or Frazier. That have the the greatest need for a SP between Atl, Pit, and Hou. If he goes to the Yankees, I could see it possibly happening in July, but there should be plenty of rentals out there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Stolen from the minor league catch-all thread: Chris Cotillo @ChrisCotillo now MLB awards Cardinals' two top picks (no. 56 and no. 75) in 2017 draft to Astros. Cardinals will pay $2M fine to Houston. With the additional picks, maybe the Astros would be more willing to match our request in a deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (striker @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:00 PM) Q will go to the Yankees. They have a ton of prospects they can include without Torres or Frazier. That have the the greatest need for a SP between Atl, Pit, and Hou. Perhaps, but I don't see any way a deal gets done without Torres or Frazier headlining They have other interesting players in their system, but I feel Mateo and Judge are overrated Sheffield's frame leads me to believe he will be a reliever. How many 5'10" starting pitchers are there in the mlb? Less than 5% of all starting pitchers are under 6' tall Kaprelian is coming off injury, Rutherford is at least three full years away from the majors and is not enough to headline a deal I don't see a match right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:05 PM) Stolen from the minor league catch-all thread: Chris Cotillo @ChrisCotillo now MLB awards Cardinals' two top picks (no. 56 and no. 75) in 2017 draft to Astros. Cardinals will pay $2M fine to Houston. With the additional picks, maybe the Astros would be more willing to match our request in a deal? Possibly, but doubtful Pick outside of the top 50 are pretty much a crapshoot, and your chances of landing impact talent are far lower than in the first round, specifically top half The additional bonus pool money might be interesting though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) Possibly, but doubtful Pick outside of the top 50 are pretty much a crapshoot, and your chances of landing impact talent are far lower than in the first round, specifically top half The additional bonus pool money might be interesting though I wasn't really referring to the picks coming our way but more as a reason the Astros may be willing to deal the guys already there since they can make up some of the prospect depth in June. Edited January 30, 2017 by soxfan2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneofthemikes Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) If the Sox were to accept a Pirates package of Glasnow, Keller, Newman, and Hayes for Q. Would the Sox be able to then package something at the deadline like Robertson(assuming healthy), Glasnow, and Adams to the Yanks for Frazier and Rutherford? Edited January 30, 2017 by oneofthemikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con te Giolito Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 If the Sox were to accept a Pirates package of Glasnow, Keller, Newman, and Hayes for Q. Would the Sox be able to then package something like Robertson(assuming healthy), Glasnow, and Adams to the Yanks for Frazier and Rutherford? If the Yankees want to trade their top prospects for arms they will just trade for Jose Quintana themselves. I could maybe see a Rutherford-Glasnow swap happening due to proximity to the majors and flexibility of the Yankees needs, but even that seems far-fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:31 PM) If the Sox were to accept a Pirates package of Glasnow, Keller, Newman, and Hayes for Q. Would the Sox be able to then package something like Robertson(assuming healthy), Glasnow, and Adams to the Yanks for Frazier and Rutherford? I think that's getting ahead of ourselves Prospect for prospect trades like that rarely happen The Yankees are not looking to move their top prospects right now, once closer to contention I think that mindset will change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:31 PM) If the Sox were to accept a Pirates package of Glasnow, Keller, Newman, and Hayes for Q. Would the Sox be able to then package something at the deadline like Robertson(assuming healthy), Glasnow, and Adams to the Yanks for Frazier and Rutherford? Flipping Glasnow would have to happen when they acquire him, not later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 02:08 PM) Perhaps, but I don't see any way a deal gets done without Torres or Frazier headlining They have other interesting players in their system, but I feel Mateo and Judge are overrated Sheffield's frame leads me to believe he will be a reliever. How many 5'10" starting pitchers are there in the mlb? Less than 5% of all starting pitchers are under 6' tall Kaprelian is coming off injury, Rutherford is at least three full years away from the majors and is not enough to headline a deal I don't see a match right now There are four outcomes as I see it. 1. Sox trade him before SP, get awesome package (A, B, 2 Cs). Similiar to Eaton/Sale deal. A would be Meadows, Albies, Torres, Frazier. 2. Sox trade him before SP, get good package. (3B + 1C) 3. Sox trade him during season, get awesome package (A, B, 2 Cs) 4. Sox trade him during season, get good package (3B + 1C) 5. Q get's injurred 6. Q value goes down. If you look at the probability of each and compare it to the return of each, then I have to think you choose 2 if 1 isn't out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (striker @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:38 PM) There are four outcomes as I see it. 1. Sox trade him before SP, get awesome package (A, B, 2 Cs). Similiar to Eaton/Sale deal. A would be Meadows, Albies, Torres, Frazier. 2. Sox trade him before SP, get good package. (3B + 1C) 3. Sox trade him during season, get awesome package (A, B, 2 Cs) 4. Sox trade him during season, get good package (3B + 1C) 5. Q get's injurred 6. Q value goes down. If you look at the probability of each and compare it to the return of each, then I have to think you choose 2 if 1 isn't out there. That is assuming that those specific proposals are out there and fit into the White Sox rebuilding plans We should not be the side of negotiations pushing to get a deal done, the buyer should. He should not be moved unless we are getting premium prospects in return, including at least one "untouchable" From the rumors we have seen the asking price is "three elite prospects", and I highly doubt the Sox move off of that ask as they have no reason to. Getting desperate will only lead to a mediocre return. I do believe we asked Houston for Musgrove/Martes/Tucker and got turned down bv the Astros, and asked for Meadows to headline any deal with the Pirates. We are essentially asking for three top 50 prospects, which is not crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:05 PM) Stolen from the minor league catch-all thread: Chris Cotillo @ChrisCotillo now MLB awards Cardinals' two top picks (no. 56 and no. 75) in 2017 draft to Astros. Cardinals will pay $2M fine to Houston. With the additional picks, maybe the Astros would be more willing to match our request in a deal? Anyone want to hack our databases for 2 draft picks and $2 million? I'd take that trade.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:59 PM) Anyone want to hack our databases for 2 draft picks and $2 million? I'd take that trade.... Lol along with sending us a bad contract with a prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:59 PM) Anyone want to hack our databases for 2 draft picks and $2 million? I'd take that trade.... TWTW is not quantifiable and as such is unhackable. Go you White Sox! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 02:52 PM) That is assuming that those specific proposals are out there and fit into the White Sox rebuilding plans We should not be the side of negotiations pushing to get a deal done, the buyer should. He should not be moved unless we are getting premium prospects in return, including at least one "untouchable" From the rumors we have seen the asking price is "three elite prospects", and I highly doubt the Sox move off of that ask as they have no reason to. Getting desperate will only lead to a mediocre return. I do believe we asked Houston for Musgrove/Martes/Tucker and got turned down bv the Astros, and asked for Meadows to headline any deal with the Pirates. We are essentially asking for three top 50 prospects, which is not crazy I doubt any of the offers on the table are laughable. I also don't view the Sox taking the best offer as desperate. We have to weigh our own risks in this process as well. Quintana's return is a huge key to the rebuild. If he get's injured or digresses, then that would be a huge hit to the rebuild process. Martes was picked up from the Marlins as a throw in. So just because the prospects involved aren't on a list yet doesn't mean we are settling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (striker @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 03:42 PM) I doubt any of the offers on the table are laughable. I also don't view the Sox taking the best offer as desperate. We have to weigh our own risks in this process as well. Quintana's return is a huge key to the rebuild. If he get's injured or digresses, then that would be a huge hit to the rebuild process. Martes was picked up from the Marlins as a throw in. So just because the prospects involved aren't on a list yet doesn't mean we are settling. Apparently a deal was close on Xmas Eve, but fell through at the last minute (likely a three team deal with the Pirates and Yankees, likely the Yankees backed out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:05 PM) Stolen from the minor league catch-all thread: Chris Cotillo @ChrisCotillo now MLB awards Cardinals' two top picks (no. 56 and no. 75) in 2017 draft to Astros. Cardinals will pay $2M fine to Houston. With the additional picks, maybe the Astros would be more willing to match our request in a deal? They can easily give up a conditional pick + now along with the spects. It's interesting, but I still think Luhnow is too gun shy/prospect happy with his guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Had a good laugh at the proposed Cardinals trade for Q. I get the logic behind trying to formulate a quantity trade that excludes Reyes but the idea falls apart when Lynn is included. What Cards fans don't realize is if they want to include Lynn, it would cost the Cards even more in a trade since a rebuilding team like the Sox would have no interest in a 29 year old pitcher coming off of TJ surgery and will earn 7.5M in '17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominikk85 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I wonder what role musgrove plays in the Q deal with the astros? musgrove is probably penciled as the astros 5th starter so it would hurt the stros rotation depth. of course a MLB ready prospect is attractive for the sox too since he gives you innings now and still has upside but I wonder if the deal can be done if you don't ask for an MLB ready piece. so something like tucker, martes, reed, fisher and hernandez still would be attractive without attacking the astros MLB depth. would the astros do that? would hahn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 QUOTE (GermanSock @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 02:02 AM) I wonder what role musgrove plays in the Q deal with the astros? musgrove is probably penciled as the astros 5th starter so it would hurt the stros rotation depth. of course a MLB ready prospect is attractive for the sox too since he gives you innings now and still has upside but I wonder if the deal can be done if you don't ask for an MLB ready piece. so something like tucker, martes, reed, fisher and hernandez still would be attractive without attacking the astros MLB depth. would the astros do that? would hahn? Trading Musgrove doesn't hurt their pitching depth since yhey are receiving a pitcher to step in at the top of the rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 06:40 AM) Trading Musgrove doesn't hurt their pitching depth since yhey are receiving a pitcher to step in at the top of the rotation. The Astros willy likely have a rotation of Keuchel, McCullers, McHugh, Morton, & Musgrove or Fiers, with Martes & Paulion at AAA to start the season. Dealing one of Martes or Musgrove does not hurt their depth. I think everyone here can see the real problem for them and that's not having a reliable TOR starter. Quintana is exactly what they need right now and his contract aligns perfectly with their competive window. I honestly have no idea what Luhnow is thinking, but I have a feeling he's going to be desperate for a TOR starter as we get closer to the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 06:59 AM) The Astros willy likely have a rotation of Keuchel, McCullers, McHugh, Morton, & Musgrove or Fiers, with Martes & Paulion at AAA to start the season. Dealing one of Martes or Musgrove does not hurt their depth. I think everyone here can see the real problem for them and that's not having a reliable TOR starter. Quintana is exactly what they need right now and his contract aligns perfectly with their competive window. I honestly have no idea what Luhnow is thinking, but I have a feeling he's going to be desperate for a TOR starter as we get closer to the deadline. I think something like Tucker, Martes, 3rd piece, 75th pick is fair. I'm not sure Rick Hahn agrees or this would probably be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:23 AM) I think something like Tucker, Martes, 3rd piece, 75th pick is fair. I'm not sure Rick Hahn agrees or this would probably be done. Is 75th pick a pick in the second round? I don't think that would be tradeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:26 AM) Is 75th pick a pick in the second round? I don't think that would be tradeable. It is. It's the Cardinals "Competitive Balance Pick". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:28 AM) It is. It's the Cardinals "Competitive Balance Pick". Oh ok I thought that one was the other pick they got. Thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts