Quintana

[FT35]

As said above by many, value is pretty much what the market says it is. Holding onto Frazier, Swarzak and Robertson (whose value plummets after July) would be bad. Melky is likely a waiver deal, due to lack of demand for OF who hit in the .750 OPS range and who don't defend well.

Hahn has been slow in July, but that's one of his practices he needs to change (and in prior Julys, "we're still in it" provided some cover for eternal optimists).

 

Demanding productive players on contending teams in these trades is not realistic.

 

Something else to think about is the perception the league has of Hahn. In the same way we know of everyone else's needs they are looking to acquire, everyone knows of the players that we "need" to move and will be looking to exploit that by getting them cheap...as they should. I almost look at this and think that with the stakes being low on the season, guys like Frazier or Melky--choosing NOT to trade a guy away for nothing can send a more effective message to the GM's than being willing to heavily discount someone. You want Frazier or Melky for your stretch run, all you have to do is offer something of value or we will keep him--which really only hurts YOU because you've determined him to be an upgrade over what you have and we weren't going to get anything of much value anyway. So we eat one bad contract and miss out on a junk prospect...the message will be more clear to teams in the future--"Hey...when they say they'll just keep someone, they aren't bluffing." We might get more from future trades because of a move we DON'T make.

[KnightsOnMintSt]

Would like to see a Robertson trade sooner than later because I think what we could get for him (Plus maybe throwing in Kahnle or Swarzak) could really determine how badly we need to trade Q.

 

Lets say the Nats give us Robles and a lotto ticket for Robertson and Kahnle. Then we could get some decent pieces for Cabrera, Frazier, Swarzak, Gonzalez and Holland. Do we then hold on to Q for the rebuild?

[FT35]

Would like to see a Robertson trade sooner than later because I think what we could get for him (Plus maybe throwing in Kahnle or Swarzak) could really determine how badly we need to trade Q.

 

Lets say the Nats give us Robles and a lotto ticket for Robertson and Kahnle. Then we could get some decent pieces for Cabrera, Frazier, Swarzak, Gonzalez and Holland. Do we then hold on to Q for the rebuild?

 

I'd like to see him move soon too. I just don't see them moving Robles in any Robertson/bullpen package. Robles is their Moncada. Robertson is mid-tier closer material, they would have to be getting Chapman/Jansen to even consider Robles.

[KnightsOnMintSt]

I'd like to see him move soon too. I just don't see them moving Robles in any Robertson/bullpen package. Robles is their Moncada. Robertson is mid-tier closer material, they would have to be getting Chapman/Jansen to even consider Robles.

 

Wishful thinking, I know. But the Nationals are true World Series contenders. I put it below a 5% chance of moving him, but to really lockdown the bullpen, it wouldn't totally shock me.

[Chicago White Sox]

Would like to see a Robertson trade sooner than later because I think what we could get for him (Plus maybe throwing in Kahnle or Swarzak) could really determine how badly we need to trade Q.

 

Lets say the Nats give us Robles and a lotto ticket for Robertson and Kahnle. Then we could get some decent pieces for Cabrera, Frazier, Swarzak, Gonzalez and Holland. Do we then hold on to Q for the rebuild?

We're not getting Robles for any of our relievers. Rizzo will be able to solve his bullpen woes by using Fedde, Soto, Kieboom, & other lesser pieces.

 

But let's say we did, keeping Quintana doesn't make any sense. We need to turn him into mutliple pieces, with one or two of those pieces having star quality. We aren't winning anything with Quintana in 2018 & 2019, so why forego all the value we could receive in the interim?

[bmags]

Something else to think about is the perception the league has of Hahn. In the same way we know of everyone else's needs they are looking to acquire, everyone knows of the players that we "need" to move and will be looking to exploit that by getting them cheap...as they should. I almost look at this and think that with the stakes being low on the season, guys like Frazier or Melky--choosing NOT to trade a guy away for nothing can send a more effective message to the GM's than being willing to heavily discount someone. You want Frazier or Melky for your stretch run, all you have to do is offer something of value or we will keep him--which really only hurts YOU because you've determined him to be an upgrade over what you have and we weren't going to get anything of much value anyway. So we eat one bad contract and miss out on a junk prospect...the message will be more clear to teams in the future--"Hey...when they say they'll just keep someone, they aren't bluffing." We might get more from future trades because of a move we DON'T make.

 

I am deeply skeptical of this point.

[KnightsOnMintSt]

We're not getting Robles for any of our relievers. Rizzo will be able to solve his bullpen woes by using Fedde, Soto, Kieboom, & other lesser pieces.

 

But let's say we did, keeping Quintana doesn't make any sense. We need to turn him into mutliple pieces, with one or two of those pieces having star quality. We aren't winning anything with Quintana in 2018 & 2019, so why forego all the value we could receive in the interim?

 

I'm thinking of keeping Q passed 2019 in the sense that I think we could sign him to an extension and have him apart of the future. But for me, we need the bats. And if a team offers some top hitting talent, I think we have to take it. But keeping Q for the rebuild, if we're able to turn some other guys into decent pieces, would be ok with me.

[southsider2k5]

Something else to think about is the perception the league has of Hahn. In the same way we know of everyone else's needs they are looking to acquire, everyone knows of the players that we "need" to move and will be looking to exploit that by getting them cheap...as they should. I almost look at this and think that with the stakes being low on the season, guys like Frazier or Melky--choosing NOT to trade a guy away for nothing can send a more effective message to the GM's than being willing to heavily discount someone. You want Frazier or Melky for your stretch run, all you have to do is offer something of value or we will keep him--which really only hurts YOU because you've determined him to be an upgrade over what you have and we weren't going to get anything of much value anyway. So we eat one bad contract and miss out on a junk prospect...the message will be more clear to teams in the future--"Hey...when they say they'll just keep someone, they aren't bluffing." We might get more from future trades because of a move we DON'T make.

 

It absolutely depends on what is out there. If a deal is a 2/3 instead of a 1/2, you might not be missing that much depending on who it is. You can also get a pretty nice deal done with depth in a few of these systems. Maybe instead of a top guy, a second guy and another piece, you put together a second guy, and 4 other B rated guys. For a system that lacks depth, especially at the upper levels, that might actually be a better fit for the White Sox. The Yankees, and I believe the Astros have pretty serious roster crunches staring them in the face very soon. All of the teams that go crazy in Latin American eventually face this if their talent amounts to anything. Eventually guys have to be 40 maned or lost.

 

Realistically I think that Quintana is a need and a nearly ideal fit for 29 other teams. He is lefty, he is young, he is really good, he is cheap, and he is under control until next decade. Eventually I think desperation will set in somewhere, and the bids will come up.

[FT35]

I am deeply skeptical of this point.

 

I get it...but when negotiating you need to understand your bargaining position and not underestimate that bargaining position. If a team approaches you for something, you hold the cards. You're not going to over-value your player, but you're not going to be quick to just dump them--or teams will just wait you out to get what you have for nothing. We're going to lose some guys regardless of whether another team inquires. So just send a subtle message that waiting us out till we dump players isn't a good idea if you truly want someone.

[Chicago White Sox]

I'm thinking of keeping Q passed 2019 in the sense that I think we could sign him to an extension and have him apart of the future. But for me, we need the bats. And if a team offers some top hitting talent, I think we have to take it. But keeping Q for the rebuild, if we're able to turn some other guys into decent pieces, would be ok with me.

The problem is we're not going to get a ton for our guys other than Quintana & Robertson. I think Frazier might be able to land a prospect in an org's 6 to 10 range, which is fine but is not really going to move the needle. Everyone else should land even less IMO (at least with the guys guaranteed to be moved).

 

And signing Q into his mid 30's seems like a poor use of resources. We have a ton of pitching depth in our system and for better or worse we need to find out exactly what we have. Down the road if we do have a gap, then you sign a veteran to plug a hole, but for right now I'm going to assume we can build a quality rotation around the young guys we have today and the guys we may at the deadline.

[bmags]

I get it...but when negotiating you need to understand your bargaining position and not underestimate that bargaining position. If a team approaches you for something, you hold the cards. You're not going to over-value your player, but you're not going to be quick to just dump them--or teams will just wait you out to get what you have for nothing. We're going to lose some guys regardless of whether another team inquires. So just send a subtle message that waiting us out till we dump players isn't a good idea if you truly want someone.

 

But this relies on basically creating a facade of being irrational.

[FT35]

But this relies on basically creating a facade of being irrational.

 

Kind of! It's kind of like being effectively wild on the mound. Throw one to the backstop right before you ace someone on the corner. Keep them guessing!

 

If you genuinely want someone we have and feel that he makes you a better team, that alone should be worth something more than a low-ball offer. Plus players know how an organization feels about them when they see who they give up to get them. Right away, they know...hmmm...do they have confidence in me or am I just a Hail Mary option? Their performance may reflect that expectation.

Edited July 11, 2017 by FT35

[GreenSox]

I'm thinking of keeping Q passed 2019 in the sense that I think we could sign him to an extension and have him apart of the future. But for me, we need the bats. And if a team offers some top hitting talent, I think we have to take it. But keeping Q for the rebuild, if we're able to turn some other guys into decent pieces, would be ok with me.

It's too far in the future; we can sign a different player if need be when the time comes. The Sox get will get miniscule value from having Q on the team the next few years.

The Sox just need good baseball players. The biggest deficit in 2015 and 2016 was defense, starters 4 and 5 and bullpen depth.

Edited July 11, 2017 by GreenSox

[iamshack]

But this relies on basically creating a facade of being irrational.

I actually agree with FT on this one.

 

Nothing wrong with burning a guy to show negotiating strength.

 

This is no different than eating salary to improve your return.

 

This is just using that concept across more than one transaction - basically eating salary today to improve a return in a different transaction later.

 

I absolutely expect we will end up with some of these guys after the non-waiver deadline and even after the waiver deadline, simply because we didn't want to give a guy away for nothing.

[bmags]

I actually agree with FT on this one.

 

Nothing wrong with burning a guy to show negotiating strength.

 

This is no different than eating salary to improve your return.

 

This is just using that concept across more than one transaction - basically eating salary today to improve a return in a different transaction later.

 

I absolutely expect we will end up with some of these guys after the non-waiver deadline and even after the waiver deadline, simply because we didn't want to give a guy away for nothing.

 

I just find it more likely that teams won't view the White Sox as serious sellers and will move on to teams that are negotiating honestly.

 

This has all the potential of being too clever by half.

[GenericUserName]

Something else to think about is the perception the league has of Hahn. In the same way we know of everyone else's needs they are looking to acquire, everyone knows of the players that we "need" to move and will be looking to exploit that by getting them cheap...as they should. I almost look at this and think that with the stakes being low on the season, guys like Frazier or Melky--choosing NOT to trade a guy away for nothing can send a more effective message to the GM's than being willing to heavily discount someone. You want Frazier or Melky for your stretch run, all you have to do is offer something of value or we will keep him--which really only hurts YOU because you've determined him to be an upgrade over what you have and we weren't going to get anything of much value anyway. So we eat one bad contract and miss out on a junk prospect...the message will be more clear to teams in the future--"Hey...when they say they'll just keep someone, they aren't bluffing." We might get more from future trades because of a move we DON'T make.

 

I think the problem with this is that it kind of assumes that there is only one willing buyer and one willing seller in the market for a particular piece (which may be the case if we keep anyone beyond the trade deadline and instead try to do waiver trades). Then doing something like this would probably work and would help maximize the return across all trades, especially when you consider that a guy like Todd or Melky provides intangible benefits, such as mentoring the young guys for the rest of the season, that you do not get value from in a trade. However, assuming there are multiple teams buying and multiple teams selling similar pieces, then this doesn't really make sense to me. In this more likely scenario, the real issue is the relative negotiating strength of the other teams willing to sell. If a team is undecided on whether they will be buyers or sellers, or even if they just stay the same, the team trying to buy will have to pay a premium for the player they are seeking because the potentially selling team would have equal value from the player as the buying team. So, if our player has similar or greater value than the other player, it makes more sense to try to get our player for the same premium they would have to offer the other team or slightly more so that they get a better return for the value given up. In this scenario we may not be able to get the full value for a player, but we would not have to give the player away for nothing. With even more potential buyers, this effect is increased such that we may actually get a return that exceeds the value of the player, and this seems to be backed up by the evidence of deadline deals often resulting in overpayment for players. There is ofcourse the opposite side of the argument, namely that having more sellers will drive down our relative negotiating position and therefore the cost of the players, but with the new wild card rules there seems to be more buyers than sellers every year. That said, with the seemingly over-saturated market for back end starting pitchers, I could see us taking very little for a deal, though that may just be a result of their miniscule value.

[FT35]

I just find it more likely that teams won't view the White Sox as serious sellers and will move on to teams that are negotiating honestly.

 

This has all the potential of being too clever by half.

 

Maybe. But we traded Chris Sale. I think they know we're serious! ha

[hi8is]

I just find it more likely that teams won't view the White Sox as serious sellers and will move on to teams that are negotiating honestly.

 

This has all the potential of being too clever by half.

Since taking over as GM Hahn has shown consistently that he is willing to sit out the market if his demands aren't met. This started with his first deadline in the chair... he was putting up what seemed to be a lot of "big talk" at the time who many questioned as posturing.... however, he displayed integrity and kind of put the GM circle on notice.

 

They all know by now that what the man says, he means.

 

I have faith in his skills and background as a negotiator.

[Dick Allen]

Since taking over as GM Hahn has shown consistently that he is willing to sit out the market if his demands aren't met. This started with his first deadline in the chair... he was putting up what seemed to be a lot of "big talk" at the time who many questioned as posturing.... however, he displayed integrity and kind of put the GM circle on notice.

 

They all know by now that what the man says, he means.

 

I have faith in his skills and background as a negotiator.

As of today, there are several more teams that need Jose Quintana than the White Sox. Hahn has to make them swallow hard.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Sleepy Harold]

Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal

21s

Sources: #Twins checking on controllable starters. List would include Quintana, Gray, as well as someone like Straily (control through ’20).

[bmags]

Since taking over as GM Hahn has shown consistently that he is willing to sit out the market if his demands aren't met. This started with his first deadline in the chair... he was putting up what seemed to be a lot of "big talk" at the time who many questioned as posturing.... however, he displayed integrity and kind of put the GM circle on notice.

 

They all know by now that what the man says, he means.

 

I have faith in his skills and background as a negotiator.

 

But I don't think think this is what Hahn would do. It is being recommended he "wait out the market" by letting it expire for expendable assets in the hope that could translate as a bigger return for Q. I find that extremely risky in the hopes of adding some unknown % of a better deal to Q/Robertson.

[hi8is]

But I don't think think this is what Hahn would do. It is being recommended he "wait out the market" by letting it expire for expendable assets in the hope that could translate as a bigger return for Q. I find that extremely risky in the hopes of adding some unknown % of a better deal to Q/Robertson.

That's why I don't think we'll see a typical Hahn trade deadline: we have a lot of assets that we can't wait out. No matter what, this years gonna be different. What I'm specifically getting at is that Hahn has established integrity with kther GM's and they will know that he is willing to hold Q if he doesn't get an acceptable offer.

[OmarComing25]

I know in recent history Hahn hasn't done much at the deadline but we also weren't rebuilding during those times. I guess you could argue we were rebuilding last year at the deadline but we really didn't have any expiring assets like we do this year. The impending free agents we did have had no value.

[hi8is]

I know in recent history Hahn hasn't done much at the deadline but we also weren't rebuilding during those times. I guess you could argue we were rebuilding last year at the deadline but we really didn't have any expiring assets like we do this year. The impending free agents we did have had no value.

I als think that Hahn holding onto Sale last trade deadline will ring out to potential Q buyers... Hahn has established credibility and my hope is that it pays off in the coming weeks.

[steveno89]

There is a rental from the past couple seasons who had value. The White Sox had a great offer. KW said no to moving him. He wanted to try and compete.

 

For Samardzija? Or?