Jump to content

Quintana Rumors: Round and round and round we go


GGajewski18
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 05:07 PM)
Its worth taking a bit less of a price than TOTAL FLEECING and just dealing Quintana now to avoid being burned by the ever-present threats (even in the case of Mr Consistent himself) of ineffectiveness or injury. Could you imagine if Q busts his shoulder in May for a terrible Sox team and getting basically nothing in return for him?

 

This isn't an argument to give him away, but it is an argument to be a little more flexible on the asking price.

 

What makes you think Hahn isn't being reasonable? There's zero reason to think this given the deals already made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:07 PM)
Its worth taking a bit less of a price than TOTAL FLEECING and just dealing Quintana now to avoid being burned by the ever-present threats (even in the case of Mr Consistent himself) of ineffectiveness or injury. Could you imagine if Q busts his shoulder in May for a terrible Sox team and getting basically nothing in return for him?

 

This isn't an argument to give him away, but it is an argument to be a little more flexible on the asking price.

 

Eh, disagree. Sox can afford to be patient with Q due to his control. The guy has never been hurt and has an incredibly easy and clean motion. Sure, he could get hurt - anyone can - but you don't take a lesser deal in the December or January prior to 4 more years on cheap control due to that. Rick has said this will take some time. Get what you want or hold onto him until you do. I am confident he will do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 02:07 PM)
Its worth taking a bit less of a price than TOTAL FLEECING and just dealing Quintana now to avoid being burned by the ever-present threats (even in the case of Mr Consistent himself) of ineffectiveness or injury. Could you imagine if Q busts his shoulder in May for a terrible Sox team and getting basically nothing in return for him?

 

This isn't an argument to give him away, but it is an argument to be a little more flexible on the asking price.

I disagree. I understand your point, but we are still the one moving the established piece. While the increased understanding of the value of prospects has made blue chippers more difficult to acquire than ever, I think our demands are reasonable. We can't come out slightly ahead or even IF things work out in the best way possible. We need to come out WELL AHEAD if things break in the best way possible - because the odds are that they won't.

 

I don't understand why the Sale deal is so incredibly lopsided in our favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:07 PM)
Its worth taking a bit less of a price than TOTAL FLEECING and just dealing Quintana now to avoid being burned by the ever-present threats (even in the case of Mr Consistent himself) of ineffectiveness or injury. Could you imagine if Q busts his shoulder in May for a terrible Sox team and getting basically nothing in return for him?

 

This isn't an argument to give him away, but it is an argument to be a little more flexible on the asking price.

 

Agree to disagree here.

 

First, I don't buy the premise that Hahn fleeced Rizzo (that got a lot of play from our biased buddies out East) or, to a lesser extent, Dombrowski. Instead, Hahn showed admirable discipline, valued some incredibly valuable assets appropriately, and didn't chase. Create something akin to an auction and somebody will pay the reasonable, albeit stiff, price. Hahn wasn't trading stiffs; he was trading star or near star current big leaguers with near unheard of $/control/WAR analytics. Just because many in the industry have become prospect over-huggers, doesn't mean that Hahn shouldn't extract reasonable value from teams with surplus to trade for Hahn's surplus to trade back in return.

 

With Q, keep fighting the good fight, Rick. Someone will pay an appropriately reasonable price for that incredible top 20 starter (at least) pitcher otherwise known as Q. Don't chase. Don't telegraph. Don't be KW.

 

And absolutely absurd to even entertain the notion that Qs contract is a negative for the Pirates. It's an absolute -- Q's contract is valuable for ANY team. Just because Huntington and gang boxed themselves into a corner by coming for Q before dealing McCutcheon (and I'm not sure that's honest anyway -- it's also a likely ploy to back the Sox off of a Meadows demand) and signing the immortal Daniel Hudson and Ivan (the not terrible, but not so great) Nova, doesn't mean the Sox need to cut the Pirates a special break. Or any break. Q's outrageous value is in part related to his fantastic contract. If the Pirates can't pay for that, then the Pirates don't play. It really isn't that complicated.

 

I recognize that Hahn can overplay his strong hand, but I think we're far, far from that point in December 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:24 PM)
I disagree. I understand your point, but we are still the one moving the established piece. While the increased understanding of the value of prospects has made blue chippers more difficult to acquire than ever, I think our demands are reasonable. We can't come out slightly ahead or even IF things work out in the best way possible. We need to come out WELL AHEAD if things break in the best way possible - because the odds are that they won't.

 

I don't understand why the Sale deal is so incredibly lopsided in our favor.

 

Sure, show me up ...

make my points in far fewer words!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 02:26 PM)
Sure, show me up ...

make my points in far fewer words!

No, no, no.

 

For an increasing number of folks, reading your posts is an absolute pleasure.

 

Please error on the long-winded side of the fence, if ever in any doubt.

 

:cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 03:41 PM)
One thing I'm thinking about right now is that the White Sox have already taken 2 franchises that think they can win right now...and gutted them. So, there were teams willing to go all-in and make a move, and teams that had the resources to do so, and 2 of those teams are now gone. So now...we're left with a set of teams that should still make moves, but they're more hesitant to do so.

 

So, maybe we're also running into a demand shortage. We've tapped out 2 teams, leaving only a handful of teams who even have the resources to make such a move. If that were the case, then waiting on a few drafts, signings, and minor league breakouts, maybe even combined with a major league surprise or injury or two, could be required before anyone steps up to pay this price.

The difference is now we are dealing with mid market teams that value their prospects much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:38 PM)
No, no, no.

 

For an increasing number of folks, reading your posts is an absolute pleasure.

 

Please error on the long-winded side of the fence, if ever in any doubt.

 

:cheers

 

:cheers

 

Reading here is a guilty pleasure, but I usually prefer to hear voices other than mine. And then there's that darn "lacking time" problem.

 

The long-windedness is often explained by the famous Twain quote: "I apologize for the length of this letter. If I had MORE time it would have been SHORTER."

 

Back to Hahn and Q, I'm very confident that Hahn will get a deal done for Q that is in the same general ballpark with the Sale an Eaton deals. If you're going to tear it down and build it back up, it's imperative that you get the funding (a considerable quantity of high-quality prospects that accounts for the inevitable busts) to give that build-up a fighting chance. Love hearing about ceilings for one prospect or another, but, please, assigning WAR to a ceiling and then acting as if that number compares one-to-one with a known consistently excellent big leaguer's number? Voodoo economics there.

 

I'm particularly excited with the chance of using Robertson and Jones intelligently through the ASB and getting strong value for them at the deadline. I'm sure within the nerve center, they've discussed doing that and filling their roles late season with some combination of Fuller, Burdi, and, just maybe, Kopech. Let those young guys start for the first 3 months, then limit their innings by bringing them up for relief roles here, but getting the benefit of learning at the big team level.

 

Won't be a great W/L year for the Sox, but it won't be lacking in interest. Not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 10:07 PM)
Its worth taking a bit less of a price than TOTAL FLEECING and just dealing Quintana now to avoid being burned by the ever-present threats (even in the case of Mr Consistent himself) of ineffectiveness or injury. Could you imagine if Q busts his shoulder in May for a terrible Sox team and getting basically nothing in return for him?

 

This isn't an argument to give him away, but it is an argument to be a little more flexible on the asking price.

 

If you aren't actually making the argument to take LESS For Q then somehow I have missed the point of your post even after reading it about a dozen times. The Sox don't have to trade Q are all. We have him under team control for like four more years. If a team wants to win by acquiring an ALL-Star lefty pitcher then they will pay our price or we don't give Q up

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its worth taking a bit less of a price than TOTAL FLEECING and just dealing Quintana now to avoid being burned by the ever-present threats (even in the case of Mr Consistent himself) of ineffectiveness or injury. Could you imagine if Q busts his shoulder in May for a terrible Sox team and getting basically nothing in return for him?

 

This isn't an argument to give him away, but it is an argument to be a little more flexible on the asking price.

 

God why cant people see this??? The sox DO have to deal Quintana this off season. This isnt Dwight Gooden. Or Kerry Wood. Hes never getting better than he is right now. He has 4 years of control. 3 is LESS lol. The market is weak. Hes not injured. Hes at his ABSOLUTE PEAK. You are rebuilding and you dont have to deal him now? Thats retarded.

Edited by BRIRO2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 06:18 PM)
God why cant people see this??? The sox DO have to deal Quintana this off season. This isnt Dwight Gooden. Or Kerry Wood. Hes never getting better than he is right now. He has 4 years of control. 3 is LESS lol. The market is weak. Hes not injured. Hes at his ABSOLUTE PEAK. You are rebuilding and you dont have to deal him now? Thats retarded.

 

Yeah, I agree here that you have to trade Quintana before Spring Training. Like mentioned before, Quintana's value will never be higher, don't want to risk injury, and a half year/full year less of control.

 

The players I can see keeping until the deadline are Frazier, Melky, and Robertson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 05:19 PM)
What makes you think Hahn isn't being reasonable? There's zero reason to think this given the deals already made.

Same guy who traded a pretty good, very young prospect (Tatis) for an expensive, over the hill pitcher (Shields) about five months ago. I'm still shaking my head over that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:18 PM)
God why cant people see this??? The sox DO have to deal Quintana this off season. This isnt Dwight Gooden. Or Kerry Wood. Hes never getting better than he is right now. He has 4 years of control. 3 is LESS lol. The market is weak. Hes not injured. Hes at his ABSOLUTE PEAK. You are rebuilding and you dont have to deal him now? Thats retarded.

There's a lot of retards on this form and in the national media that just don't agree with you. You're not going to sway us.

 

Cheers,

-Retard #42

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (oldsox @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:42 PM)
Same guy who traded a pretty good, very young prospect (Tatis) for an expensive, over the hill pitcher (Shields) about five months ago. I'm still shaking my head over that one.

That deal reeked of Kenny Williams and Hahn has wanted to rebuild for ages. We're finally getting an opportunity to see Rick do his thing with less opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of retards on this form and in the national media that just don't agree with you. You're not going to sway us.

 

Cheers,

-Retard #42

 

LOL and i would care why? Especially your opinion. If you do not want people thinking youre a moron(that i do), stop acting like one. And opposing everything i say, isnt going to change a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 06:57 PM)
LOL and i would care why? Especially your opinion. If you do not want people thinking youre a moron(that i do), stop acting like one. And opposing everything i say, isnt going to change a thing.

 

If you'd like people to care about your opinion, stop acting so dismissive and some better language.

 

Hi8is posts like a nutjob most of the time but is benign and shows his intelligence when he so chooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced we'd get THAT much more for 4 years of control vs. 3 years (or 3.5). Certainly not the same additional value as trading an elite pitcher with one year of control. There are diminishing returns on the back end.

 

We shouldn't be greedy, but if the right deal isn't there, we can afford to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd like people to care about your opinion, stop acting so dismissive and some better language.

 

Hi8is posts like a nutjob most of the time but is benign and shows his intelligence when he so chooses.

 

Couldnt care less....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade needs to happen before this thread disintegrates any further. :lol:

 

It's difficult to say the Sox should ask for more or less without knowing exactly what the offers are. All we have to go on is that the Sale and Eaton packages were headlined by two top 50 prospects and there's no reason to think a return for Q won't be the same.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 05:00 PM)
I'm not convinced we'd get THAT much more for 4 years of control vs. 3 years (or 3.5). Certainly not the same additional value as trading an elite pitcher with one year of control. There are diminishing returns on the back end.

 

We shouldn't be greedy, but if the right deal isn't there, we can afford to wait.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. While generally, 4 years of control is preferable to 3, these trades don't exactly work off a scale like the NFL draft picks do or something.

 

While I think it is optimal to acquire him now if you are another team, I don't think it is that big of a deal if you have to move him in 6 months or even a year from now.

 

One thing I will add though, and I wrote this earlier in the thread, if one of these teams that is kicking the tires on Q now comes back in desperate straights in July, I am making them pay a premium for forcing me to go into the season with Q. Make them pay some consideration for their wait and see approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 04:57 PM)
LOL and i would care why? Especially your opinion. If you do not want people thinking youre a moron(that i do), stop acting like one. And opposing everything i say, isnt going to change a thing.

I like apples and ba-nay-nays. Popsicles, pork tacos, and fruit roll ups. Yay, yay, yay! Wheeeee!! Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!! Whooooo!

 

As the famed farmer said in the prolific film, "Babe"...

"That'll do pig, that'll do."

 

Such mastery of film making, that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...