Quintana Trade Value

[BigHurt3515]

I would rather not trade Quintana unless we are getting a proven player with a good track record at 3rd, Catcher, CF, or LF and a good hitting prospect

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Is Lawrie really a big enough upgrade over Gillaspie to warrant trading a cost controlled 2-3 LH starter? His numbers don't look great. Is this just because he was a highly rated prospect? I'm seriously not following.

 

The idea would be buying low on a former "cant-miss" prospect and also getting one of the best pitching prospects in baseball.

[greg775]

Gillaspie and Lawrie were pretty much the same last year. Conor is 2.5 years older and a LH ,which we need, and is one of the few Sox who works the count well.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/sanc...-arizona-video/ Sanchez AFL video ,Jays #3 prospect according to BB America.

 

If we're going to trade Q how about Kendrick and the switch hitting catcher Conger from the Angels for Q and Beckham ? We upgrade 2 positions that way.

 

Hell make it a blockbuster with the Angels give them a choice of Phegley or Flowers and get Bourjos too .

I'm all for a blockbuster with the Angels. Makes sense.

 

It's really not lopsided at all. Brett Lawrie isn't good and Sanchez will be fortunate to be as good as Quintana.

That's a very compellng post. Never thought of it but you could be right, sir. Food for thought.

[greg775]

I think we should start a thread Santiago trade value. I'd rather trade him than Q. Could Santiago get the Sox Lawrie? Straight up? Santiago and Gillaspie for Laurie.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I think we should start a thread Santiago trade value. I'd rather trade him than Q. Could Santiago get the Sox Lawrie? Straight up? Santiago and Gillaspie for Laurie.

 

Ehhhh, probably doubtful.

[hogan873]

I think we should start a thread Santiago trade value. I'd rather trade him than Q. Could Santiago get the Sox Lawrie? Straight up? Santiago and Gillaspie for Laurie.

Right now I think Quintana is more valuable, maybe a lot more valuable. Santiago seems a bit more raw, but I think he will only be getting better. Personally, I'd like to Sox to hold onto both of them unless a can't-pass-up deal comes along. I know they need to fill a couple gaping holes, but I'm not sure Lawrie fills one of those holes adequately enough to give up a very good, inexpensive left-handed pitcher.

[Jake]

You guys are seriously underrating Brett Lawrie. He has been a "disappointment" so far and has been posting near 100 wRC+ with very good defense. Steamer has him posting a 110 wRC+ and 3.0 WAR over 130 games next year. That would be great.

[RockRaines]

I dont think we are going to trade an arm for anything other than a proven veteran hitter.

[Kyyle23]

You guys are seriously underrating Brett Lawrie. He has been a "disappointment" so far and has been posting near 100 wRC+ with very good defense. Steamer has him posting a 110 wRC+ and 3.0 WAR over 130 games next year. That would be great.

 

He also seems to be injured frequently. That would not be great

[Jake]

He also seems to be injured frequently. That would not be great

 

Definitely. I actually think it looks like a fair deal, where it is tough to say which team will win. They get what seems to be a higher degree of certainty, we get more talent at a position that is weak on our squad and in the league on the whole. Lawrie has done fine during injury-riddled seasons and may really break out if healthy. Q has been healthy and relatively consistent, but not dominant. A very interesting deal.

[knightni]

Jeff Hoffman, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Garza, etc...

You want Jimenez and Garza but not Chase Headley?

[iamshack]

Definitely. I actually think it looks like a fair deal, where it is tough to say which team will win. They get what seems to be a higher degree of certainty, we get more talent at a position that is weak on our squad and in the league on the whole. Lawrie has done fine during injury-riddled seasons and may really break out if healthy. Q has been healthy and relatively consistent, but not dominant. A very interesting deal.

Was thinking about this a bit last night as I struggled to fall asleep at night (I know, #firstworldproblems)...with the shift in the run-scoring environment, and therefore the emphasis shifting from finding young pitching to finding young position players, and coupled with our recent ability(or disability) to develop each, respectively, maybe this is a move we need to make. I often think about Quintana as a Mark Buehrle clone, and I think that is a fair comparison, but how valuable is that really in a much lower run-scoring environment? Probably a lot less valuable than we think of Mark being worth over the course of all those years.

 

Maybe we need to take some chances on some position players, because as Eminor mentioned, you're not going to get a guy that hasn't had some of the shine worn off him.

[iamshack]

The only things Quintana and Buehrle have in common is they throw with their left hand and have low walk rates.

Oh, ok...thanks for clearing that up for me.

[iamshack]

Why are they so similar to you? Because Mark is a convenient comparison who played in Chicago for 12 years or whatever it was?

No. It's more their mental makeup than anything else. They both don't exactly wow you with stuff, although Q is showing a fastball Mark never really had, but they pound the zone with strikes and don't give a f*** who is at the plate. It's just sort of a moxie they both seem to have. Here it is, hit it.

[2nd_city_saint787]

An interesting question that I was pondering as I too had those first world problems shack had(couldn't sleep).....

 

If San Fran came along and offered the Sox Sandoval for Q and a much lesser prospect which would you guys rather do? Sandoval/lesser prospect or Lawrie and the 20th overall prospect?

 

I'm kinda torn here. While Sandoval has been the better, more consistent hitter overall, Lawrie might have the higher upside but is much less of a sure thing. Does the potential of a potential front end of the rotation starter a year or 2 down the line push you to take the risk on Lawrie, or with this offense the way it is now make you disregard the high end prospect for the more sure thing offensively?

 

What says you?

 

 

 

[iamshack]

An interesting question that I was pondering as I too had those first world problems shack had(couldn't sleep).....

 

If San Fran came along and offered the Sox Sandoval for Q and a much lesser prospect which would you guys rather do? Sandoval/lesser prospect or Lawrie and the 20th overall prospect?

 

I'm kinda torn here. While Sandoval has been the better, more consistent hitter overall, Lawrie might have the higher upside but is much less of a sure thing. Does the potential of a potential front end of the rotation starter a year or 2 down the line push you to take the risk on Lawrie, or with this offense the way it is now make you disregard the high end prospect for the more sure thing offensively?

 

What says you?

Lawrie

[knightni]

I thought that Toronto wanted Lawrie because they were trying to put Canadian-born players on their roster to draw in the fans.

[Eminor3rd]

An interesting question that I was pondering as I too had those first world problems shack had(couldn't sleep).....

 

If San Fran came along and offered the Sox Sandoval for Q and a much lesser prospect which would you guys rather do? Sandoval/lesser prospect or Lawrie and the 20th overall prospect?

 

I'm kinda torn here. While Sandoval has been the better, more consistent hitter overall, Lawrie might have the higher upside but is much less of a sure thing. Does the potential of a potential front end of the rotation starter a year or 2 down the line push you to take the risk on Lawrie, or with this offense the way it is now make you disregard the high end prospect for the more sure thing offensively?

 

What says you?

 

Comes down to age and team control. Gotta be Lawrie

[Eminor3rd]

I thought that Toronto wanted Lawrie because they were trying to put Canadian-born players on their roster to draw in the fans.

 

I think that's just a media narrative. They always do it with Miami too.

[LittleHurt05]

An interesting question that I was pondering as I too had those first world problems shack had(couldn't sleep).....

 

If San Fran came along and offered the Sox Sandoval for Q and a much lesser prospect which would you guys rather do? Sandoval/lesser prospect or Lawrie and the 20th overall prospect?

 

I'm kinda torn here. While Sandoval has been the better, more consistent hitter overall, Lawrie might have the higher upside but is much less of a sure thing. Does the potential of a potential front end of the rotation starter a year or 2 down the line push you to take the risk on Lawrie, or with this offense the way it is now make you disregard the high end prospect for the more sure thing offensively?

 

What says you?

 

You get Sandoval for one year, have to pay him $8.25 million in 2014, then he becomes a free agent. If you do extend him for big money you obviously have to worry about weight issues.

 

Lawrie is under team control for the next four seasons, and in 2014 is only due a small raise from his $500k salary.

 

Considering where the Sox are at, it's a no brainer. A team like Detroit might look at it differently (if they needed a 3b hypothetically)

[Princess Dye]

Quintana has really put together two nice years. Still, I have to keep that 'sell high' mindset with him if the offer is right........a mindset i actually dont have for Hector. Comes down to talent perhaps blinding me, but as they're both guys I just categorize as 'solid'......that's where i stand. At least when looking at it separate from contract details.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Quintana has really put together two nice years. Still, I have to keep that 'sell high' mindset with him if the offer is right........a mindset i actually dont have for Hector. Comes down to talent perhaps blinding me, but as they're both guys I just categorize as 'solid'......that's where i stand. At least when looking at it separate from contract details.

I think the Sox can afford to wait another year before they trade any of their pitchers. Johnson and Rienzo could break out but we can't afford to deal Q if they don't. Also need 2014 to see if Danks comes back. If we trade Q it has to be a clear win. Otherwise see what teams like the Angels want because they have pieces that are available for pitching. Kendricks ,Conger and Bourjos can all help us.

Edited October 24, 2013 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Balta1701]

I think the Sox can afford to wait another year before they trade any of their pitchers. Johnson and Rienzo could break out but we can't afford to deal Q if they don't. Also need 2014 to see if Danks comes back. If we trade Q it has to be a clear win. Otherwise see what teams like the Angels want because they have pieces that are available for pitching. Kendricks ,Conger and Bourjos can all help us.

The problem is...this is a "win next year" philosophy. If our goal is long-term development and the team thinks there's a good chance Johnson and Rienzo are long-term starters, then having them starting in the big leagues next year is the best thing for their development...but that can't happen with both.

 

Which would mean either...one of them gets put at AAA (ok) or one of them gets put in the bullpen (God no not again please God no not again).

 

Right now we're sitting on 6 starters...maybe 4 of whom need innings in the big leagues, a 5th who is a developing young starter, and a ridiculous ace. Innings are actually oversubscribed here, and innings are the biggest key to developing these guys (or strengthening their shoulders).

[Chicago White Sox]

I think the Sox can afford to wait another year before they trade any of their pitchers. Johnson and Rienzo could break out but we can't afford to deal Q if they don't. Also need 2014 to see if Danks comes back. If we trade Q it has to be a clear win. Otherwise see what teams like the Angels want because they have pieces that are available for pitching. Kendricks ,Conger and Bourjos can all help us.

First off, not to be a dick, but it's Kendrick, no 's'. Second, why would you want him to be a big piece back for Quintana?

 

He's already 30 years old, is only under contract for two more years at fairly large rates, and most importantly plays an easy position to fill and one where we actually have a decent amount of depth in the organization. He's a good player no doubt and the age doesn't really bother me as much as it would others, but I don't how he makes any sense as a long-term fit, especially at the expense of one of our best assets.

[SoxFan1]

Could be Quintana to Toronto for 3B Lawrie and RHP Aaron Sanchez.

 

 

I like Quintana, but I would do this trade before Toronto could change their mind.

 

 

oh boy bucket is breaking out some specifics.. what you think the likelihood we make a deal with the jays built around Quintana for Lawrie?

 

 

Tough to call likelihood. It's been talked about.

 

 

Much more interested in that...

 

 

What can you folks tell us about this Aaron Sanchez, other than the fact that he is a chef on the Food Network?

Aaron Sanchez is damn near untouchable. They moved top guys like Syndergaard and Nicolino and DeSclafani last offseason to get a Cy Young winner. Sanchez isn't going anywhere unless the Jays are getting a Felix Hernandez type.

 

His fastball sits at about 97 and is rated among the best in all of MiLB and he's got nasty secondary stuff too.