Buehrlesque Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:50 AM) I'm not suggesting compromise won't eventually happen, but if his ask was Musgrove + Martes + Tucker the Sox are not going to take Martes + Tucker + depth as a package Do we have to taken Martes in an Astros package as a given? I say, why waste all your capital (so to speak) on another SP (and one who's not as good as Giolito or Kopech at that). Let the Astros keep Musgrove and Martes, who can nominally contribute to their big league team today. If the Sox deal with the Astros (not my preferred choice anyway), I'd rather see Q for Tucker + Reed + Laureano + one of Paulino/Whitley/Perez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) Then why did they sign a closer to an $86 million contract (with an opt out after three years, when they would theoretically be competitive)? I don't get that. I think the Yankees would be fine with trading Frazier + Rutherford for Quintana, but it won't happen until June/July. This is exactly what I can't make sense of, and why I keep thinking in the back of my mind that the Yankees are still a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Because a guy like Chapman may not be available in next year's free agent class. A guy like Q WON'T be available in next years free agent class because the guy has near zero financial obligation compared to the rest of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:01 AM) Do we have to taken Martes in an Astros package as a given? I say, why waste all your capital (so to speak) on another SP (and one who's not as good as Giolito or Kopech at that). Let the Astros keep Musgrove and Martes, who can nominally contribute to their big league team today. If the Sox deal with the Astros (not my preferred choice anyway), I'd rather see Q for Tucker + Reed + Laureano + one of Paulino/Whitley/Perez. There is zero chance a deal gets done that does not include at least one of Musgrove or Martes Tucker alone is not a good enough prospect to headline a Quintana deal. If the price were as low as Tucker + Reed + Laureano + Paulino/Whitley/Perez then more than half the mlb would be calling. That package could easily be beaten by the Braves, Pirates, Yankiees, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) A guy like Q WON'T be available in next years free agent class because the guy has near zero financial obligation compared to the rest of the market. Sure. They won't have to trade top prospects though. And Q's price will be cheaper if he's still on the market next offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) They want to be good at some point in those 5 years and they also didn't have to give up top talent to bring him in. I bet they go all in next off-season. Like I said, this season is hitting the reset button. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Because a guy like Chapman may not be available in next year's free agent class. Cueto and Arrieta are the big names net offseason, and they will cost a crap ton. Plus the Yankees will have to deal with resigning Tanaka. If they're concerned with the luxury tax, I would think it would be easier for the Yankees to bring in a modestly-priced Quintana than try to make the numbers work for Tanaka and one of Cueto/Arrieta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) Cueto and Arrieta are the big names net offseason, and they will cost a crap ton. Plus the Yankees will have to deal with resigning Tanaka. If they're concerned with the luxury tax, I would think it would be easier for the Yankees to bring in a modestly-priced Quintana than try to make the numbers work for Tanaka and one of Cueto/Arrieta. Maybe they end up dealing Tanaka if he is doing good for prospects at the deadline to have more depth for a Q trade? Based on their trades last season, it seems like they're into that. I don't think it's impossible for them to have interest, I just don't see it until around mid-season. Step 1: Trade Tanaka for prospects Step 2: Trade prospects for Quintana Step 3: Sign a starter in free agency in the off-season Worth mentioning A-Rod and CC are off the books for them after this season ($46 mill). Edited February 8, 2017 by soxfan2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) Maybe they end up dealing Tanaka if he is doing good for prospects at the deadline to have more depth for a Q trade? Based on their trades last season, it seems like they're into that. I don't think it's impossible for them to have interest, I just don't see it until around mid-season. You mean so they could trade for Q and have control of him for several years and then resign Tanaka after the season is over? That's a good idea for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) You mean so they could trade for Q and have control of him for several years and then resign Tanaka after the season is over? That's a good idea for them. Yeah like what they did with Chapman. They also wouldn't need to give up a pick to sign Tanaka as opposed to another option. Check out my edited post. Edited February 8, 2017 by soxfan2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowand's rowdies Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Hey Houston... 2016 Stats of Napoli (New TEX Ranger) vs Quintana http://www.rotowire.com/baseball/vsbatter.htm?id=12329 22 4 .182 1 0 1 3 2 9 0 1 .364 .250 .614 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) A guy like Q WON'T be available in next years free agent class because the guy has near zero financial obligation compared to the rest of the market. Quintana will also cost top prospects, while Chapman only cost money. I'm not sure how the two scenarios are even remotely comparable, especially for a team like the Yankees. Scooping up an elite reliever a year early (when one might not be available in 2018's free agent class) only for cash makes sense whether they are competing in 2017 or not. Trading away key parts of your future when you're not ready to compete doesn't. The Yankees are much better off keeping their cost-controlled talent and trying to add TOR starters via free agency over the next two years before looking at guys who cost prospect capital. Edited February 8, 2017 by Chicago White Sox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) Maybe they end up dealing Tanaka if he is doing good for prospects at the deadline to have more depth for a Q trade? Based on their trades last season, it seems like they're into that. I don't think it's impossible for them to have interest, I just don't see it until around mid-season. Step 1: Trade Tanaka for prospects Step 2: Trade prospects for Quintana Step 3: Sign a starter in free agency in the off-season I could see this. Worth mentioning A-Rod and CC are off the books for them after this season ($46 mill). With regard to ARod and CC, they may free up $46 mil, but Tanaka plus Arrieta/Cueto would probably cost more than $50 mil/year combined, thus increasing payroll overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) Hey Houston... 2016 Stats of Napoli (New TEX Ranger) vs Quintana http://www.rotowire.com/baseball/vsbatter.htm?id=12329 22 4 .182 1 0 1 3 2 9 0 1 .364 .250 .614 God, those Cespedes numbers. So much damage in only 19 PAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:23 AM) I could see this. With regard to ARod and CC, they may free up $46 mil, but Tanaka plus Arrieta/Cueto would probably cost more than $50 mil/year combined, thus increasing payroll overall. Well you'd also have to subtract out Tanaka's $22 mill from the 2017 payroll (he's signed for longer, but has the opt-out which he would likely do if he pitches good and is healthy) so it would actually be less. So after this year if he opts out, its actually a $68 mill difference from what they are now to next off-season without Tanaka, A-Rod and CC. Edit: if that makes sense haha Edited February 8, 2017 by soxfan2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) Well you'd also have to subtract out Tanaka's $22 mill from the 2017 payroll (he's signed for longer, but has the opt-out which he would likely do if he pitches good and is healthy) so it would actually be less. So after this year if he opts out, its actually a $68 mill difference from what they are now to next off-season without Tanaka, A-Rod and CC. Edit: if that makes sense haha Ah yes, that does make sense. It will be interesting to see how they allocate their resources this season and next offseason, both cash resources and prospect resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:32 AM) Ah yes, that does make sense. It will be interesting to see how they allocate their resources this season and next offseason, both cash resources and prospect resources. Yes it will be. I could totally see them adding a starter next off-season (along with maybe Q if he is still around at the deadline this year or next off-season) and then signing a bat (Harper or Machado) in the following off-season. I think Gardner is a free agent at that point as well. He's not making a ton but every bit of savings helps. Edited February 8, 2017 by soxfan2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiks12 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 There is no reason for the Yankees to get Q right now. If he is destroys the league again next season then sure, but there is no reason to risk acquiring him. He could turn into Danks 2.0 with time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (reiks12 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 01:08 PM) There is no reason for the Yankees to get Q right now. If he is destroys the league again next season then sure, but there is no reason to risk acquiring him. He could turn into Danks 2.0 with time. thats just silly Quintana's last two years are options so if he did manage to s*** the bed they would be on the hook for 2M thats it so for 17 and 18 and his buy outs 16.8M, thats nothing like Danks at all, its even more risk adverse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiks12 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (beautox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 01:39 PM) thats just silly Quintana's last two years are options so if he did manage to s*** the bed they would be on the hook for 2M thats it so for 17 and 18 and his buy outs 16.8M, thats nothing like Danks at all, its even more risk adverse If you are giving up the required package for him then yes it is a risk. A risk they don't have to take at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (Soha @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) Cashman said the White Sox are right now where the Yankees were last summer. They're doing the same thing we are. It's the same thing as the Sox wouldn't turn around and trade Moncada and Giolito for anything either. Not sure I believe that. Since when have the Yankees decided they weren't going to be competitive ? The Yankees are the greatest franchise in baseball history with very small periods of not attempting to compete.They have a boatload of cash albeit more when they get rid of some contracts, but still I say the Yanks are all in it next year so even getting Q now would still be prudent. The idea that Q isn't worth Rutherford and Frazier is utterly preposterous . Prospects = suspects. Just because Sanchez played great for a half season doesn't mean all Yankee prospects are golden. Odds are one of those 2 end up never being a starter on a regular basis . Q is a proven commodity over and over and over and over again. I'm not against the rebuild but some of you are in for a shock when some of these guys we traded for have major injuries or just never pan out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 03:24 PM) Not sure I believe that. Since when have the Yankees decided they weren't going to be competitive ? The Yankees are the greatest franchise in baseball history with very small periods of not attempting to compete.They have a boatload of cash albeit more when they get rid of some contracts, but still I say the Yanks are all in it next year so even getting Q now would still be prudent. The idea that Q isn't worth Rutherford and Frazier is utterly preposterous . Prospects = suspects. Just because Sanchez played great for a half season doesn't mean all Yankee prospects are golden. Odds are one of those 2 end up never being a starter on a regular basis . Q is a proven commodity over and over and over and over again. I'm not against the rebuild but some of you are in for a shock when some of these guys we traded for have major injuries or just never pan out. That's part of the problem with acquiring top prospects. The love only has 2 ways to go. Either they are stars and it's level or it goes down. I know it has to be done sometimes (I didn't agree with the Eaton trade) but expecting all or even most of these guys to be top players is probably hoping for a little too much. Edited February 8, 2017 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I just saw today's episode of MLB Network's show. I think it replays later. Nightengale was still saying that Jim Crane has 1 more move left in him and that he thinks Q or Gray is on Astros to start the season. So weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiks12 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Of course he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I swear Nightengale must get a commission if Q gets traded. He's the only one playing up any news about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (pablo @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 05:42 PM) I swear Nightengale must get a commission if Q gets traded. He's the only one playing up any news about it. He did interview Jim Crane the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts