Jay Bruce

[LDF]

I would think the use of the phrase "surplus value" would cover that, but that said, just because Quintana would "only" put up 32 WAR over 6 seasons doesn't mean he should just be traded away. If Trout is 51 WAR over the same 6 years, that still kind of illustrates that Quintana is likely one of the most valuable players in the league for that time span regardless of contract, and shouldn't just be offered up as trade bait unless you're getting several quality major league contributors or one or two extremely high caliber major league contributors in return. When you factor contract in, it becomes nigh impossible to get value out of Quintana in a trade.

 

that is why fans don't see the superstar |s| trade that often. the ballclubs involve, those

players are just doing a chg of scenery.

Edited November 22, 2014 by LDF

[BlackSox13]

I threw this out there in the predict the next move thread. I'm wondering if the possible trade could be Q + Semien or Sanchez for Bruce and Latos? As I said in the other thread, I'm not advocating trading Q. Just trying to understand the Q "+" bit.

 

[LDF]

I threw this out there in the predict the next move thread. I'm wondering if the possible trade could be Q + Semien or Sanchez for Bruce and Latos? As I said in the other thread, I'm not advocating trading Q. Just trying to understand the Q "+" bit.

 

crazy sox are giving up toooo much.

[BlackSox13]

crazy sox are giving up toooo much.

I'm just trying to understand the Q+ part of what's been speculated. I wouldn't say its "crazy", I mean Bruce and Latos have solid value and its not like Sanchez or Semien have done mind boggling things in their debuts so I would say their value is rather limited til they take the next step. Q holds 99.99999% of the value in the trade.

 

Edit: Forget Latos. Was thinking he had two years of control left but he does not and is a FA after 2015. That combined with his injury last year definitely hurts his value.

Edited November 22, 2014 by StRoostifer

[Dam8610]

I'm just trying to understand the Q+ part of what's been speculated. I wouldn't say its "crazy", I mean Bruce and Latos have solid value and its not like Sanchez or Semien have done mind boggling things in their debuts so I would say their value is rather limited til they take the next step. Q holds 99.99999% of the value in the trade.

 

It would have to be Bruce, Cueto with a cheap extension, and Chapman in my book to get Q+. They could also throw in that catcher of theirs I suppose. The trade may sound ridiculous, but that's about where Q is value wise.

 

[BlackSox13]

It would have to be Bruce, Cueto with a cheap extension, and Chapman in my book to get Q+. They could also throw in that catcher of theirs I suppose. The trade may sound ridiculous, but that's about where Q is value wise.

I like that you're shooting for the stars man. To be honest, if I had Bruce, Cueto, Chapman + C ( guessing you mean Tucker Barnhart) ; I would not trade them for Q. If Jocketty went loco and offered up all four of them along with an extension for Cueto, I would drive Q to Cincinnati personally.

[Eminor3rd]

This just proves to me why I'm not a sabermetric guy and hate how they are used to justify players values because Trout is a much better baseball player than Quintana regardless of what those "metrics" say. Personally, I'd trade Quintana for Bruce tomorrow. I'd probably trade him for Mike Trout too

 

Of course Trout is better. Balta 's point is related to the economics. He's illustrating why Quintana's value is substantially higher than a typical pitcher of his skill because of the price at which it comes. His contract must be factored.

 

Quintana for Bruce straight up would be the worst trade in Sox history. And literally all of us would trade Quintana for Trout without even stopping to think.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Interesting exercise, except even though Quintana is about the same surplus value montetarily, you also have to factor in that if Trout and Quintana both continue to have similar 2014 campaigns until 2020, Trout has just amassed 51 WAR, while Quintana has accrued about 32 WAR. So, yes, Q and Trout may give you similar bang for your buck, but you'd still be better off with him on your team than Quintana. Not assuming you don't understand that, but I just want to make sure other posters don't get confused thinking that Q and Trout have the same value.

 

 

Like this.....

 

This just proves to me why I'm not a sabermetric guy and hate how they are used to justify players values because Trout is a much better baseball player than Quintana regardless of what those "metrics" say. Personally, I'd trade Quintana for Bruce tomorrow. I'd probably trade him for Mike Trout too

 

[Balta1701]

This just proves to me why I'm not a sabermetric guy and hate how they are used to justify players values because Trout is a much better baseball player than Quintana regardless of what those "metrics" say. Personally, I'd trade Quintana for Bruce tomorrow. I'd probably trade him for Mike Trout too

The player alone doesn't have that value. The player + the contract status is what makes it close.

 

If I'm comparing the value of Trout and Quintana, yes Trout is clearly a better player, but with Quintana's deal, I have an extra $100 million to go play the free agent market with, and Quintana + that extra 6/$100 has a good chance of being close to as productive as Trout.

 

Yes, there's a benefit to having a single guy who's that productive, so it's not 100% a perfect comp and I don't want anyone to take it as that, but there's also a benefit to being able to have extra money to spend on the FA market since you could also get lucky and find a guy like Morneau with some of that money who massively overplays his contract.

 

The point ought to be that no, you wouldn't trade Trout for Quintana straight up, but that's about the level of deal you need to think about before you start considering moving Quintana. If you swap in Sale, or Trout, in the proposed deal, do you laugh at it? Do you laugh at a deal of Sale or Trout for Jay Bruce? It's hilarious and crazy. Jose Quintana in that deal is equally hilarious and crazy.

[Lemon_44]

The player alone doesn't have that value. The player + the contract status is what makes it close.

 

If I'm comparing the value of Trout and Quintana, yes Trout is clearly a better player, but with Quintana's deal, I have an extra $100 million to go play the free agent market with, and Quintana + that extra 6/$100 has a good chance of being close to as productive as Trout.

 

Yes, there's a benefit to having a single guy who's that productive, so it's not 100% a perfect comp and I don't want anyone to take it as that, but there's also a benefit to being able to have extra money to spend on the FA market since you could also get lucky and find a guy like Morneau with some of that money who massively overplays his contract.

 

The point ought to be that no, you wouldn't trade Trout for Quintana straight up, but that's about the level of deal you need to think about before you start considering moving Quintana. If you swap in Sale, or Trout, in the proposed deal, do you laugh at it? Do you laugh at a deal of Sale or Trout for Jay Bruce? It's hilarious and crazy. Jose Quintana in that deal is equally hilarious and crazy.

Contract, or not, I think it's silly to put Quintana on par with Sale or Trout. There are no metrics that could convince me otherwise. I think their contracts bear that out as well. There is a reason Trout makes what he makes and Quintana makes what he makes. I'm not saying anything bad about Quintana, to me, he's just not as good as those other

guys. Hypothetically, I would guess if all 4 were on the FA market, the order in size of contracts offered would be Trout, Sale, Bruce, Quintana.

 

Maybe I am missing your point.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Lemon_44

[Jerksticks]

Chapman, Bruce and RHSP for Q, Montas +

 

We're close to contender talk there and we are relieving the Reds of quite a bit of salary.

[Balta1701]

Contract, or not, I think it's silly to put Quintana on par with Sale or Trout. There are no metrics that could convince me otherwise. I think their contracts bear that out as well. There is a reason Trout makes what he makes and Quintana makes what he makes. I'm not saying anything bad about Quintana, to me, he's just not as good as those other

guys. Hypothetically, I would guess if all 4 were on the FA market, the order in size of contracts offered would be Trout, Sale, Bruce, Quintana.

 

Maybe I am missing your point.

Yes there is, but that reason has literally nothing to do with their performance, it has to do with how close they were to free agency when they signed their contract.

[caulfield12]

Now we have Reds and Dodgers fans storming the barricades.

 

Let's try to return to reality. It's amazing how some typical bold/brash KW comments have some believing we can acquire nearly any player on the planet regardless of the expense or talent demanded to consummate said transaction.

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

Contract, or not, I think it's silly to put Quintana on par with Sale or Trout. There are no metrics that could convince me otherwise. I think their contracts bear that out as well. There is a reason Trout makes what he makes and Quintana makes what he makes. I'm not saying anything bad about Quintana, to me, he's just not as good as those other

guys. Hypothetically, I would guess if all 4 were on the FA market, the order in size of contracts offered would be Trout, Sale, Bruce, Quintana.

 

Maybe I am missing your point.

 

I don't think Balta is saying they are on the same level in terms of talent. Sale and Trout are among the 'elite' players. Q is among the 'very good' players. But Q's contract adds a level of financial flexibility that you would not normally be able to get with another player of his skill level. If Q hit free agency, he would make A LOT more than he is making now. That financial flexibility would allow a team to go out and use the money they would have normally had to invest in a player like Q into an additional area of need.

[BlackSox13]

Chapman, Bruce and RHSP for Q, Montas +

 

We're close to contender talk there and we are relieving the Reds of quite a bit of salary.

That trade pretty much taps the remaining funds the Sox have to spend and the Sox still have Danks and Noesi in the rotation along with a young Rodon who's only going to be able to pitch so many innings, if he shows he's ready in the first place.

 

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I like that you're shooting for the stars man. To be honest, if I had Bruce, Cueto, Chapman + C ( guessing you mean Tucker Barnhart) ; I would not trade them for Q. If Jocketty went loco and offered up all four of them along with an extension for Cueto, I would drive Q to Cincinnati personally.

I said the same names earlier in the thread because if you factor in Bruce's down year and Cueto FA next year and Chapman the year after that Bruce is also a FA in 2017 . So it's 2 years of Bruce and Chapman and 1 for Cueto for a total of 5 years for 3 players for 2016 nd 2017 .

 

Now I know if they go for a total rebuild with separate trades they could get a boatload of prospects . That's the part of baseball that I never quite get . Why trade great prospects for guys who have only a year or 2 left before FA ? Ok 2 years is better but 1 year sucks . For legit contenders at trade deadline it's more understandable but Q's talent and contract outweigh a lot of things .I surely wouldn't move him for both Latos and Leake because they are both FA in 2016 assuming you can't extend either one. There aren't too many instances of extensions signed after a trade with players facing free agency.

 

Even if the Sox were in rental mode like Veeck used to do they'd still have to give up prospects which isn't happening unless some team see's more value than most of us do in our crowded MI situation or Hector Noesi.

[LDF]

Chapman, Bruce and RHSP for Q, Montas +

 

We're close to contender talk there and we are relieving the Reds of quite a bit of salary.

 

have you look at the Reds minor league, they have some arms down there. now i

don't know if any are elite.

[LDF]

The player alone doesn't have that value. The player + the contract status is what makes it close.

 

If I'm comparing the value of Trout and Quintana, yes Trout is clearly a better player, but with Quintana's deal, I have an extra $100 million to go play the free agent market with, and Quintana + that extra 6/$100 has a good chance of being close to as productive as Trout.

 

Yes, there's a benefit to having a single guy who's that productive, so it's not 100% a perfect comp and I don't want anyone to take it as that, but there's also a benefit to being able to have extra money to spend on the FA market since you could also get lucky and find a guy like Morneau with some of that money who massively overplays his contract.

 

The point ought to be that no, you wouldn't trade Trout for Quintana straight up, but that's about the level of deal you need to think about before you start considering moving Quintana. If you swap in Sale, or Trout, in the proposed deal, do you laugh at it? Do you laugh at a deal of Sale or Trout for Jay Bruce? It's hilarious and crazy. Jose Quintana in that deal is equally hilarious and crazy.

 

the bolded part, that was a great explanation.

 

[LDF]

Contract, or not, I think it's silly to put Quintana on par with Sale or Trout. There are no metrics that could convince me otherwise. I think their contracts bear that out as well. There is a reason Trout makes what he makes and Quintana makes what he makes. I'm not saying anything bad about Quintana, to me, he's just not as good as those other

guys. Hypothetically, I would guess if all 4 were on the FA market, the order in size of contracts offered would be Trout, Sale, Bruce, Quintana.

 

Maybe I am missing your point.

 

if you don't mind, lets flip this, what value would you put Q at???

[BlackSox13]

I said the same names earlier in the thread because if you factor in Bruce's down year and Cueto FA next year and Chapman the year after that Bruce is also a FA in 2017 . So it's 2 years of Bruce and Chapman and 1 for Cueto for a total of 5 years for 3 players for 2016 nd 2017 .

 

Now I know if they go for a total rebuild with separate trades they could get a boatload of prospects . That's the part of baseball that I never quite get . Why trade great prospects for guys who have only a year or 2 left before FA ? Ok 2 years is better but 1 year sucks . For legit contenders at trade deadline it's more understandable but Q's talent and contract outweigh a lot of things .I surely wouldn't move him for both Latos and Leake because they are both FA in 2016 assuming you can't extend either one. There aren't too many instances of extensions signed after a trade with players facing free agency.

 

Even if the Sox were in rental mode like Veeck used to do they'd still have to give up prospects which isn't happening unless some team see's more value than most of us do in our crowded MI situation or Hector Noesi.

You took the words right out of my mouth sir. Another thing is, let's say the Sox desire to sign a few of those guys long term. Imagine what the additional cost per year would be to keep Chapman, Latos and/or Leaks on the south side for the next 3-6 years, just for those three! I dare not speculate without being close to a toilet for fear of shatting myself. All this on top of Bruce's salary for the next three years and the rest of the existing team.

 

Its easy to say ”trade Q" but how much would it cost to replace Q's production? Q is se to make a measley 3.4M.

 

Q's age +salary + performance = insane value.

Edited November 23, 2014 by StRoostifer

[Lemon_44]

if you don't mind, lets flip this, what value would you put Q at???

I think I'm probably in the vast minority, but I'd trade Q for Bruce straight up. That's assuming Bruce is back to 100%. I think he'd bring more to the Sox than Quintana. I know people mention his contract but 17 mill, or whatever he's scheduled to make, doesn't seem all that bad when the Sox just gave 12.5 mill to a 35 year old part time DH. Maybe I overrate Bruce, but a 27 year old who has put up his kind of numbers is the type of guy that can be a major building block.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Lemon_44

[oldsox]

I think I'm probably in the vast minority, but I'd trade Q for Bruce straight up. That's assuming Bruce is back to 100%. I think he'd bring more to the Sox than Quintana. I know people mention his contract but 17 mill, or whatever he's scheduled to make, doesn't seem all that bad when the Sox just gave 12.5 mill to a 35 year old part time DH. Maybe I overrate Bruce, but a 27 year old who has put up his kind of numbers is the type of guy that can be a major building block.

Q has waaay too much value to trade him straight up for Bruce.

[Dick Allen]

Over the past 2 seasons, Lester has a 10.4 WAR, Q has a 9.0 WAR. Over the next 6 seasons, Q is owed at most, around $40 million, Lester will get about $100 million or more more than that. Q has 2 buyout years at $1 million if something goes wrong. Lester will be quaranteed all his money. Q is 5 years younger.

 

 

I always thought Alexei was underappreciated, but the thought that anyone here would be willing to trade this guy, when he gives you the performance of a star, and allows the White Sox to spend big money elsewhere because he gets paid so little, makes me believe he is perhaps the most under appreciated White Sox ever. I have seen it posted here he is a decent #2 maybe a three on a championship team. He was 9th in baseball in pitching WAR, and got paid like a reclimation project.

 

There really is no realistic way the White Sox would trade him. I am sure they would take Mike Trout, but that isn't happening.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Dick Allen

[LDF]

Over the past 2 seasons, Lester has a 10.4 WAR, Q has a 9.0 WAR. Over the next 6 seasons, Q is owed at most, around $40 million, Lester will get about $100 million or more more than that. Q has 2 buyout years at $1 million if something goes wrong. Lester will be quaranteed all his money. Q is 5 years younger.

 

 

I always thought Alexei was underappreciated, but the thought that anyone here would be willing to trade this guy, when he gives you the performance of a star, and allows the White Sox to spend big money elsewhere because he gets paid so little, makes me believe he is perhaps the most under appreciated White Sox ever. I have seen it posted here he is a decent #2 maybe a three on a championship team. He was 9th in baseball in pitching WAR, and got paid like a reclimation project.

 

There really is no realistic way the White Sox would trade him. I am sure they would take Mike Trout, but that isn't happening.

 

excellent post.

[SCCWS]

Over the past 2 seasons, Lester has a 10.4 WAR, Q has a 9.0 WAR. Over the next 6 seasons, Q is owed at most, around $40 million, Lester will get about $100 million or more more than that. Q has 2 buyout years at $1 million if something goes wrong. Lester will be quaranteed all his money. Q is 5 years younger.

 

 

I always thought Alexei was underappreciated, but the thought that anyone here would be willing to trade this guy, when he gives you the performance of a star, and allows the White Sox to spend big money elsewhere because he gets paid so little, makes me believe he is perhaps the most under appreciated White Sox ever. I have seen it posted here he is a decent #2 maybe a three on a championship team. He was 9th in baseball in pitching WAR, and got paid like a reclimation project.

 

There really is no realistic way the White Sox would trade him. I am sure they would take Mike Trout, but that isn't happening.

 

I also think Q is pretty much untouchable. In reagrds to Lester, his 3-0 w a sub.50 ERA in 2 World Series puts him pretty much at the top of the food chain. He may be as good as any lefthander not named Sale in baseball. Lester will get more than $100 Mil. My guess is $130-140 for 5-6 years.