Revisiting the Q deal

[Balta1701]

43 minutes ago, DH in the NL said:

Another question that is being answered now is why the Red Sox we’re willing to let go of the #1 prospect in baseball instead of Benitendi. 

Because the Red Sox were ready to compete right then and Moncada was not ready to be called up right then. That one is easy. I'd make the same call.

[GreenSox]

14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Such as?

Why does Moncada need Abreu around?
Real Housewives of Atlanta
They are young guys with massive talent; they'll pull it together soon enough or at least they should.

Edited July 13, 2018 by GreenSox

[southsider2k5]

8 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

Why does Moncada need Abreu around?
Real Housewives of Atlanta
They are young guys with massive talent; they'll pull it together soon enough or at least they should.

I am struggling to see what these have to do with off of the field focus problems, or even what #2 is.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

16 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

We didn't win anything "easily". Eloy and Cease have combined for 0 MLB games so far. Let's pump the brakes with this kind of analysis.

 

I think it's very likely that we end up winning this deal but it's far too early to declare anything 

Thank you trades that involve minor league players take years to declare a winner or loser. But that is the mind set around here. We are a little too high on our prospects while the vast majority of them arent close yet and could falter at higher levels.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

23 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

All reports are that the Cubs blew away the next  leading offer, so it probably wasn't as big as we are speculating here. 

Well you have to put that into context. When did the trade take place and what was Albies doing at the time. No one expected the kind of powere he has shown at the time of the trade. If JImenez ends up an oft injured 1st baseman we'll think differently later.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Well you have to put that into context. When did the trade take place and what was Albies doing at the time. No one expected the kind of powere he has shown at the time of the trade. If JImenez ends up an oft injured 1st baseman we'll think differently later.

If that happens, then we're starting to ask how the scouts missed the potential physical problems  he might come up with.

[Jose Abreu]

13 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

 Thank you trades that involve minor league players take years to declare a winner or loser. But that is the mind set around here. We are a little too high on our prospects while the vast majority of them arent close yet and could falter at higher levels.

I see a lot of it the other way around too. People declaring that we lost the Sale trade as if Kopech and Basabe are busts, or as if Moncada hasn't only been around for a few months. Or people saying we lost the Eaton trade when it's actually looking pretty good overall and Eaton has played like 35 games since the trade. People need to let the process just ride out and evaluate once these players actually get here (if they do) 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If that happens, then we're starting to ask how the scouts missed the potential physical problems  he might come up with.

Well I don't blame anyone for injuries especially scouts. Hell I can't even blame Hermie like I've seen a few here do.Injuries happen and if a guy turns out to be injured often I don't see that as something that is predictable at all unless there was a history of that before the acquisition and even then that can be bad luck and doesn't necessarily mean it will continue

[caulfield12]

For example, a lot of Cubs fans have been all over their scouting department for Darvish’s season so far...there’s always going to be a certain amount of risk in every acquisition.

I guess the one injury that was the most predictable was Burger going down so quickly, but an Achilles’ at that age is extremely rare even for a bigger athlete.

[kitekrazy]

32 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Thank you trades that involve minor league players take years to declare a winner or loser. But that is the mind set around here. We are a little too high on our prospects while the vast majority of them arent close yet and could falter at higher levels.

 Some think it's like the NBA or NFL and these guys should be up after a couple of years.  I've heard at one time in the older days of baseball a guy stayed in the minors for 5 years. If Moncada doesn't become a stud there will be the debate of being brought up too soon.

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Well you have to put that into context. When did the trade take place and what was Albies doing at the time. No one expected the kind of powere he has shown at the time of the trade. If JImenez ends up an oft injured 1st baseman we'll think differently later.

Do we even know that moving forward? Other then a half a season in the bigs is there anything to suggest he can continue to hit for that kind of power struggling to make contact?

[wrathofhahn]

3 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Thank you trades that involve minor league players take years to declare a winner or loser. But that is the mind set around here. We are a little too high on our prospects while the vast majority of them arent close yet and could falter at higher levels.

This has always been a false assertion of course we can declare who won or lost a trade early. Sure it may change over time but as of 7/13/2018 the cubs massively overpaid for what they have received which is a 4th starter.

If we wanted to we could move Cease or Eloy and get much more then Q back. How could that be viewed anything other then a win? Conversely Tatis JR is a clear loss. Why? Because he has much more value then what we got out of James Shields.

Players are assets that go up and down in value that isn't just limited to prospects by the way. People just highlight them because there is more often a higher variance between the expected performance and what they actually do at the ML level but like I said the Cubs never thought they were trading for a 4th starter. They thought they would be getting a solid number two in alot of ways that trade has really started to snowball on them because one of the reasons they went out and got Darvish was Q's poor performance after the trade

[SoxBlanco]

2 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

This has always been a false assertion of course we can declare who won or lost a trade early. Sure it may change over time but as of 7/13/2018 the cubs massively overpaid for what they have received which is a 4th starter.

If we wanted to we could move Cease or Eloy and get much more then Q back. How could that be viewed anything other then a win? Conversely Tatis JR is a clear loss. Why? Because he has much more value then what we got out of James Shields.

Players are assets that go up and down in value that isn't just limited to prospects by the way. People just highlight them because there is more often a higher variance between the expected performance and what they actually do at the ML level but like I said the Cubs never thought they were trading for a 4th starter. They thought they would be getting a solid number two in alot of ways that trade has really started to snowball on them because one of the reasons they went out and got Darvish was Q's poor performance after the trade

This has me thinking...

If we trade Shields for a lottery ticket who turns into a solid regular and Tatis Jr never makes it to the majors for whatever reason (maybe an injury), would the Sox be considered the winners of the original trade with San Diego?

[footlongcomiskeydog]

I know this is the Q trade thread, but I wonder if Soto was on the table at all during the Eaton trade talks.

That kid looks like something extremely special. I doubt you could even get him for Moncada plus Kopech at this point in time.

[Flash Tizzle]

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

I know this is the Q trade thread, but I wonder if Soto was on the table at all during the Eaton trade talks.

That kid looks like something extremely special. I doubt you could even get him for Moncada plus Kopech at this point in time.

They probably never even mentioned his name. I guarantee he would have been theirs for the taking, you never heard anyone claiming he was untouchable. Their focus was probably pitching and pitching alone

 

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

This has me thinking...

If we trade Shields for a lottery ticket who turns into a solid regular and Tatis Jr never makes it to the majors for whatever reason (maybe an injury), would the Sox be considered the winners of the original trade with San Diego?

The Sox would be winners if tatis doesn't make it to the MLB period.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

6 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

This has always been a false assertion of course we can declare who won or lost a trade early. Sure it may change over time but as of 7/13/2018 the cubs massively overpaid for what they have received which is a 4th starter.

If we wanted to we could move Cease or Eloy and get much more then Q back. How could that be viewed anything other then a win? Conversely Tatis JR is a clear loss. Why? Because he has much more value then what we got out of James Shields.

Players are assets that go up and down in value that isn't just limited to prospects by the way. People just highlight them because there is more often a higher variance between the expected performance and what they actually do at the ML level but like I said the Cubs never thought they were trading for a 4th starter. They thought they would be getting a solid number two in alot of ways that trade has really started to snowball on them because one of the reasons they went out and got Darvish was Q's poor performance after the trade

Sure you can look at it that way and It's easy enough to understand but they are still minor league players and the trades were made to help the big league club so they either have to play in the big leagies or get traded for guys who play in the big leagues. Right now their value to me is in limbo until they help the White Sox win in one way or another.

In your way the Sox haven't "won" the trade but they are "winning" the trade in the early innings. The final verdict to say we won it is still very much undecided as are all the trades with guys still playing in the minors.

[Chicago White Sox]

17 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

Do we even know that moving forward? Other then a half a season in the bigs is there anything to suggest he can continue to hit for that kind of power struggling to make contact?

Yup, people don’t really know how to evaluate young players given the lack of track record, so we all just overreact to small sample sizes.  The juiced ball we’re now seeing in the majors is also making these evaluations more complex, because now all of a sudden a guy like Albies (or Torres to a lesser extent) is on pace for 30 HRs out of the gate.  Ultimately, we have to give the league a chance to adjust to these young players before jumping to any conclusions.  I still believe Moncada will hit for far more power than Albies & Torres, it will just take him longer to get there because he came into the league with more exploitable weaknesses.

[Chicago White Sox]

14 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

This has always been a false assertion of course we can declare who won or lost a trade early. Sure it may change over time but as of 7/13/2018 the cubs massively overpaid for what they have received which is a 4th starter.

If we wanted to we could move Cease or Eloy and get much more then Q back. How could that be viewed anything other then a win? Conversely Tatis JR is a clear loss. Why? Because he has much more value then what we got out of James Shields.

Players are assets that go up and down in value that isn't just limited to prospects by the way. People just highlight them because there is more often a higher variance between the expected performance and what they actually do at the ML level but like I said the Cubs never thought they were trading for a 4th starter. They thought they would be getting a solid number two in alot of ways that trade has really started to snowball on them because one of the reasons they went out and got Darvish was Q's poor performance after the trade

I agree for the most part, but the flaw in your analysis is that Quintana was always a deteriorating asset whereas Jimenez & Cease were ascending assets.  The Cubs have already realized a year of value out of Quintana (plus a playoff run), so of course he’s not worth the same as he was at the time of the trade. Just because Jimenez & Cease are worth more now than Quintana, doesn’t mean we won the trade.

[Richie]

On 7/13/2018 at 10:24 AM, Jose Abreu said:

Because they're in win-now mode and Moncada would take longer to develop than Benintendi. Plus, he was blocked by Pedroia.

 

Benintendi is better right now, but it's very easy to see Moncada being the more valuable player in the long run, especially given Benintendi's average-at-best defense at left field, which is either the least important or next to least important (1B) defensive position. 

I have a feeling Moncada has a promising second half. Finishes with roughly 25 HR's and 80 RBI's and 20 SB's. Gets the triple slash line up and cuts back on the K's a bit (although, it will still be an issue). I guess we'll just have to see, though. He certainly has a good deal to work on. 

[Richie]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:42 AM, Chicago White Sox said:

Yup, people don’t really know how to evaluate young players given the lack of track record, so we all just overreact to small sample sizes.  The juiced ball we’re now seeing in the majors is also making these evaluations more complex, because now all of a sudden a guy like Albies (or Torres to a lesser extent) is on pace for 30 HRs out of the gate.  Ultimately, we have to give the league a chance to adjust to these young players before jumping to any conclusions.  I still believe Moncada will hit for far more power than Albies & Torres, it will just take him longer to get there because he came into the league with more exploitable weaknesses.

 I still simply don't think the ball is juiced and that the numbers support that. Power hitters aren't hitting more HR's. The former Omar Vizquel's of the world are now deploying this launch angle craze and hitting 20 HR's instead of 5-10. Power hitters numbers aren't changing. The elite HR numbers in the league look like they have since Bonds and the big roid guys exited. 50 HR seasons are still rare. There were only 2 last season and only 3 more who hit 40 HR's. In 2016 there were approximately ZERO 50 HR hitters. K's are also way up, velo is way up... this all makes sense without a juiced ball. I still 100% believe it's a plate approach thing. 

 Most people are still stuck on that ridiculous Sports Science segment that didn't take into account that a ball from 4-5 years ago will naturally be a lot less live than a brand new one. 

[Chisoxmb35]

On 7/13/2018 at 9:17 AM, DH in the NL said:

Another question that is being answered now is why the Red Sox we’re willing to let go of the #1 prospect in baseball instead of Benitendi. 

Don't confuse your confirmation bias with reality sir. Andrew was ahead of Moncada developmentally, already producing for the Big League club and never actually on the table in a trade. Obfuscation of the facts is disingenuous and doesn't add to the discussion to be honest. 

[Jack Parkman]

Speaking of the Eaton trade, I'm not sure why they couldn't have added Robertson and received Jesus Luzardo as well. Would have been a nice get, even if the Sox had to throw in some cash to get the deal done. Luzardo has skyrocketed up prospect boards and I know there were Robertson/Luzardo conversations last offseason. Knowing how everything played out, I'd bet the Sox could have still traded Kahnle for Rutherford last year as well, as that was essentially that deal. 

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, Richie said:

 I still simply don't think the ball is juiced and that the numbers support that. Power hitters aren't hitting more HR's. The former Omar Vizquel's of the world are now deploying this launch angle craze and hitting 20 HR's instead of 5-10. Power hitters numbers aren't changing. The elite HR numbers in the league look like they have since Bonds and the big roid guys exited. 50 HR seasons are still rare. There were only 2 last season and only 3 more who hit 40 HR's. In 2016 there were approximately ZERO 50 HR hitters. K's are also way up, velo is way up... this all makes sense without a juiced ball. I still 100% believe it's a plate approach thing. 

 Most people are still stuck on that ridiculous Sports Science segment that didn't take into account that a ball from 4-5 years ago will naturally be a lot less live than a brand new one. 

The problem I have with your theory is organizations have access to Trackman data in the minors.  They can be working on launch angle down there and yet for whatever reason guys who have shown minimal power in the minors all of sudden are called up and going on tears.  To me that, that’s pretty strong evidence to suggest balls are juiced.  I do think the launch angle craze has had an impact on some guys who have been in the league for a while, but there is clearly something else also happening with these young players IMO.

[Jack Parkman]

6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The problem I have with your theory is organizations have access to Trackman data in the minors.  They can be working on launch angle down there and yet for whatever reason guys who have shown minimal power in the minors all of sudden are called up and going on tears.  To me that, that’s pretty strong evidence to suggest balls are juiced.  I do think the launch angle craze has had an impact on some guys who have been in the league for a while, but there is clearly something else also happening with these young players IMO.

Yeah, MLB pipeline had a 30 power grade on Albies and he has 20 HR on the season. Fangraphs also had a 30 FV grade on Albies power. You can't really explain that. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Jack Parkman