hi8is Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 02:27 PM) Hi8is...GIF me. It's retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (peppers312 @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 12:25 PM) if the Yanks aren't giving up Sanchez and/or Torres as one of the pieces why are we talking to them again? is their farm system THAT loaded with other prospects the Sox would be interested in acquiring? It absolutely is. And a lot of it is positional talent, which is even better. It's not hard at all to come up with several packages that exclude Sanchez and Torres that are clear overpays for Quintana, honestly. For example: Rutherford+Kapreilian+Mateo would be phenomenal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-Gun Pete Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 11:23 PM) For example: Rutherford+Kapreilian+Mateo would be phenomenal. OK, I'll bite. Even though I'm not a big supporter of the Prospect Industrial Complex that overvalues "tools" and undervalues actual outcomes, help me understand why I shouldn't hate that suggested trade. Here's what I see out of that trio you suggest: Rutherford: 130 measly PA in Rookie Ball means he's lightyears away from The Show. Piles of "golden gods" DOMINATED Rookie Ball, only to ultimately end up working @ Home Depot. Hell, even Korey (with a "K") Zangari hit more HR than this guy @ Rookie Ball. Kaprelian: 3 measly games @ A+ means he's lightyears away from The Show, & still has a lot to prove before he's an actual prospect. Mateo: An "amazing" 99 wrc+ in A+ ball (2nd exposure to the level) last year. For reference, the much-hated Charlie Tilson had a wrc+ of 121 in his 2nd go-around @ A+, with a lower K rate. On top of all of this, Yankee prospects are generally suspects, in that they're overhyped in a lot of cases. So, again, why should the top SP available in trade be stupidly given away for a pile of A ball bums? For me, no Torres in the trade = no Quintana for the Yankees, full stop. And even at that, Torres still hasn't made the jump past AA with his prospect status intact. In all honesty, the Yankees prospects have yawning flaws, or are too far away from The Show for my liking, or have not shown themselves to be superior to extant members of the SOX system. Edited March 16, 2017 by Two-Gun Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (hi8is @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 07:07 PM) It's retired. Thank god. That poor guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 11:05 PM) OK, I'll bite. Even though I'm not a big supporter of the Prospect Industrial Complex that overvalues "tools" and undervalues actual outcomes, help me understand why I shouldn't hate that suggested trade. Here's what I see out of that trio you suggest: Rutherford: 130 measly PA in Rookie Ball means he's lightyears away from The Show. Piles of "golden gods" DOMINATED Rookie Ball, only to ultimately end up working @ Home Depot. Hell, even Korey (with a "K") Zangari hit more HR than this guy @ Rookie Ball. Kaprelian: 3 measly games @ A+ means he's lightyears away from The Show, & still has a lot to prove before he's an actual prospect. Mateo: An "amazing" 99 wrc+ in A+ ball (2nd exposure to the level) last year. For reference, the much-hated Charlie Tilson had a wrc+ of 121 in his 2nd go-around @ A+, with a lower K rate. On top of all of this, Yankee prospects are generally suspects, in that they're overhyped in a lot of cases. So, again, why should the top SP available in trade be stupidly given away for a pile of A ball bums? For me, no Torres in the trade = no Quintana for the Yankees, full stop. And even at that, Torres still hasn't made the jump past AA with his prospect status intact. In all honesty, the Yankees prospects have yawning flaws, or are too far away from The Show for my liking, or have not shown themselves to be superior to extant members of the SOX system. Pirates = no Meadows, no deal Yankees = No Torres, no deal Astros = No Martes + Tucker, no deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:22 AM) Pirates = no Meadows, no deal Yankees = No Torres, no deal Astros = No Martes + Tucker, no deal Torres and Meadows aren't being moved. The fact that it's March 16th and this still needs to be stated is insane to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:33 AM) Torres and Meadows aren't being moved. The fact that it's March 16th and this still needs to be stated is insane to me. OK. Then trade him to Houston for a package built around Bregman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:22 AM) Pirates = no Meadows, no deal Yankees = No Torres, no deal Astros = No Martes + Tucker, no deal And here Quintana sits. I wonder who blinks first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 08:39 AM) OK. Then trade him to Houston for a package built around Bregman. Everyone said Moncada is "untouchable", yet the Sox still acquired him Why should the Sox settle for less than an organization's top prospects for Quintana? If the price were a lesser package, Q would have been traded already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Why is Houston getting away with acting like Martes + Tucker are some can't miss top ten recruits ala Meadows/Torres? They really aren't that different than Rutherford + Kaprellian. I'd take Kaprellian over Martes, Tucker over Rutherford, but still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) Everyone said Moncada is "untouchable", yet the Sox still acquired him Why should the Sox settle for less than an organization's top prospects for Quintana? If the price were a lesser package, Q would have been traded already That's true. I don't know why the Sox would have to accept a package where the top prospect coming back isn't the other team's top prospect or if not at least their next top 2 or 3. As long as Q is Q and is healthy, some team will eventually cave because the staffs for all these teams will most likely eventually take a hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:33 AM) Torres and Meadows aren't being moved. The fact that it's March 16th and this still needs to be stated is insane to me. Neither is Quintana then. There isn't really too much there with those teams if those players aren't included. Q has value similar to Sale and a deal without those caliber of prospects is not going to happen. There are other teams that can put together much more attractive "depth packages" than the Yankees or Pirates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) Everyone said Moncada is "untouchable", yet the Sox still acquired him Why should the Sox settle for less than an organization's top prospects for Quintana? If the price were a lesser package, Q would have been traded already Frankly, given that the Sox have already gotten packages revolving around high ceiling players, I would probably prefer a package built around four or so 50-60 FV type players. Obviously you need a couple on the higher end, but mitigating risk with these prospects is good in the long run too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Torres, Rutherford, Andujar, and Tate. I think that's fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 08:55 AM) Frankly, given that the Sox have already gotten packages revolving around high ceiling players, I would probably prefer a package built around four or so 50-60 FV type players. Obviously you need a couple on the higher end, but mitigating risk with these prospects is good in the long run too. I'd rather have fewer, high high upside players than a depth package of lesser talent Give me players like Moncada and Kopech, who could be stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:06 AM) Torres, Rutherford, Andujar, and Tate. I think that's fair. I'd consider that package, it would be a very aggressive offer from the Yankees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 10:09 AM) I'd rather have fewer, high high upside players than a depth package of lesser talent Give me players like Moncada and Kopech, who could be stars The problem lies in the fact that players like that can bust too. Brett Lawrie was great prospect that was traded who merely became an average regular. There is enough bust potential with Moncada. Given his physical skills, it's likely that he becomes at least a 3.0 WAR player. Beyond that, if there are packages based around depth that the Yankees can give, it is almost better. The Sox system is very top heavy right now, and balancing that a bit would be ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I see all these posts/tweets about wanting the Sox farm system to be balanced. I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather have a top 5 farm system with 7-8 elite prospects than a top 5 farm system with 20 decent ones. I'd much rather have elite talent at the top than balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) I see all these posts/tweets about wanting the Sox farm system to be balanced. I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather have a top 5 farm system with 7-8 elite prospects than a top 5 farm system with 20 decent ones. I'd much rather have elite talent at the top than balance. You can think you want this more until a couple of those elite guys bust or get injured then you might rethink that philosophy. Especially when out of the 20 "decent" prospects you might wind up with 8-9 really good to elite ML players. I dont think either way is a bad way or one way better than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 10:11 AM) I'd consider that package, it would be a very aggressive offer from the Yankees You run with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) You can think you want this more until a couple of those elite guys bust or get injured then you might rethink that philosophy. Especially when out of the 20 "decent" prospects you might wind up with 8-9 really good to elite ML players. I dont think either way is a bad way or one way better than the other. I'm seeing so many people proposing Q trade packages with no ascertainable headliner. What's the point of trading one of the best assets in baseball for organizational depth? Give me 2 elite prospects at the very least if Q is being discussed. Maybe Hahn can settle for depth when he trades guys like Frazier and Melky, but he definitely can't settle on Q. He's in the drivers seat without a doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yesterday333 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 09:39 AM) I'm seeing so many people proposing Q trade packages with no ascertainable headliner. What's the point of trading one of the best assets in baseball for organizational depth? Give me 2 elite prospects at the very least if Q is being discussed. Maybe Hahn can settle for depth when he trades guys like Frazier and Melky, but he definitely can't settle on Q. He's in the drivers seat without a doubt. and whats wrong with getting elite prospects with some depth guys as well. is getting a 5th guy in a depth package better than 4 guys with a couple being elite? our depth is strengthened either way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 More like soxtalk has been proposing trades for over a year with the best of the best prospects that getting a top 25 prospect and top 50 prospect are trades with "no ascertainable headliner" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) More like soxtalk has been proposing trades for over a year with the best of the best prospects that getting a top 25 prospect and top 50 prospect are trades with "no ascertainable headliner" I don't know man, I've seen plenty of cringeworthy offers for Q as of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Mar 16, 2017 -> 10:33 AM) I don't know man, I've seen plenty of cringeworthy offers for Q as of late. Rutherford headlined deals are insane in my opinion Look at what we got for Sale and Eaton and to think we'd cave on Quintana is nuts With all eyes on him he shut down the stacked USA lineup at the WBC and looked in midseason form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.