bmags

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 03:12 PM) Can we not be bitter towards teams who decide not to give us what we're asking for? It's perfectly reasonable to decide not to give Francis Martes, Kyle Tucker and Joe Musgrove for Jose Quintana. Meh, I really want to see that dumb Cameron article disproven by McHugh being terrible.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 03:04 PM) Yeah, I don't agree with Levine's wording there but I'm not trying to be too particular. I would think names like Frazier, Torres and Rutherford are " top priorities " and where discussions begin. I would think at least one of those three would be a headliner. My theory is in Levines extensive research he used an older NYY prospects list.

Legit never heard of Madden who is that?

QUOTE (Real @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 02:20 PM) anybody able to summarize the latest news/rumor? something about the yankees being the latest trade partner? any prospects named? Nightingale came out today with a rumor that yanks were expanding trade talks on Quintana to include Robertson, then another that Pitt and NYY were very interested in q and a three way trade had been discussed. Then Heyman and Sherman said their sources hadn't heard about a drob + Q package being discussed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 02:11 PM) I do think we have gone way too far down this path for something to not get done at this point. Someone is going to blink, and probably within the next week if I had to guess. Yes, and Nightengale on hot stove today said quite plainly Sox are very eager to trade him.

I can't wait for the post mortem articles on how whatever trade happened went down

Clearing headless to make way for the prospects you also just traded to sox doesn't make sense for them

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 11:32 AM) In honor of George Michael... "Wake me up, when-we-trade-Q" Hmmmm Hmmmmmmmmmm

Well, I for one am glad we are getting sustained news. I'm fine theoretically with keeping Q if prices are garbage, but the Q trade provides closure on this offseason for me that I would enjoy

https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/813797021056401408 FFS

Not that raBBit needs it - but the three way talks were just vindicated by nightingale

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 11:12 AM) Good job, Bruce. You told us everything we already knew. Ha

Someone asked whom yankees picked up with robertson comp pick - > it was Kyle Holder, who looks like a pretty light hitting player with only a .660 ops in low A. Is 21 too, so, looks like a bust.

A recent goodie in a terrible year http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/11493214/v306...fter-betts-drop

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 10:13 AM) Robertson does have value as the only decent closer available right now via trade, with the exception of Colome. Bullpen help always comes at a deadline premium, and a solid season from Robertson could make him very valuable mid season. The White Sox have refused to deal him for B level prospects, given that NO other closers are really on the market right now. I feel like i"ve said this a thousand times, but the Ken Giles and Kimbrel trades both happened in offseason and both were prospect heavy toward seller. I don't think Deadline helps that much.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) Totally forgot about Garcia. Acevedo and Holder are two guys that are clearly third tier but would slot into our top ten before this December. The more I think about it, the harder it is for me to believe that Torres will get moved. Not that Quintana isn't worth Torres, but just that it would seem so counter-productive to what Cashman has been building. And while top end talent is always the goal as you said, getting 5 or 6 of those second/third tier Yankees prospects would do our system a TON of good. Ashman has been pretty smart with prospects, and I could see the flip side where he sees an absurd amount of value being placed in this ss who has never been to double-a based off of the AFL - which has been a horrible judge of future performance. He may see it as selling high on a prospect that is more top 50 than top 5.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) I do not know this but can look it up. Luxury tax penalty is AAV

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:50 AM) Yes, I am not trading Quintana and Robertson to the Yankees for a package short of Torres + Frazier ++ and those ++ had better be quality pieces This all reeks of the White Sox swirling the rumor pot to get Pirates/Yankees/Astros/Rockies/etc to up their offer Depends. I think so highly of Torres and Frazier that any deal that gets us both of those is better to me than Quintana and Robertson separately getting us a "better" deal elsewhere. Even though I think torres + frazier ain't happening, would I take a package of Robertson/Quintana/Cash for Torres/Rutherford++ or a deal with astros for Musgrove/Martes/Tucker. I'd take Torres/Rutherford, I just like them a lot more and the backend pieces yankees have to offer. I just don't think a rudimentary formula can always be applied for prospect value.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) The salary that hits the luxury tax is by an AAV basis, correct? So even though Robertson is due to make $12 mill, his hit on the luxury tax threshold would be 11.5 since he signed a 4 year, $46 million deal? I do not know this but can look it up.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) Would you guys expect it to be an OF prospect (one of Frazier and Rutherford), an IF prospect (one of Mateo and Torres), Sheffield and then another piece or two? Yes, but honestly think all of the hangup is over Torres, who is likely a top 5-10 prospect in game now.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:18 AM) If you get money back does that mean that what you get back does not count against the luxury limit? That is my impression, i.e.dodgers luxury tax salary higher than roster salary as the portion they are paying on players not on their team goes on their books

BTW I find it so bizarre Yankees are asking for money. My message board fantasy solution would be a Frazier/Headley swap with sox getting prospects for taking on money.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) I think posters are in for a world of dissapointment if they think we'd get both Torres & Frazier in a Quintana deal. Robertson is worth something, but his addition is not resulting in another top 20 prospect, even if we pay some cash. I think any framework here revolves around one of two pairs of headliners, with either Torres + Rutherford (more desirable) or Frazier + Mateo (less desirable). Perhaps adding Robertson is what's required to get the Yankees to include Torres in a trade, as he may be the lone "untouchable" in the system. I think the complementary pieces would primarily be pitching based, with maybe a lesser positional prospect like Andujar included. Honestly, a Torres, Rutherford, Sheffield, + package for Quintana & Robertson would be a huge haul IMO. I think expecting much more than that is completely unrealistic. Totally agree. On this board by different posters, people have expressed satisfaction if Robertson were traded for Severino from Nationals. So if Robertson were included in Eaton trade it would have been Eaton + Roberton for Giolito, Lopez, Dunning and Severino, not Giolito, Robles, Lopez and Dunning. I hope if Yanks come to bad we see Torres/Frazier, but adding Robertson just adds to the back.

QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 08:28 AM) Because of the holiday I thought that talks would resume this week and Hahn would get a deal done by the new year. We will see if that is the case, but I sincerely hope the Sox eat enough of Robertson's contract to bring back prospects with Quintana. Though you'd have to think Hahn would say to Cashman that he is getting Quintana at a decent rate so he will have to give prospects without considering Robertson's contract as too much of a problem in a deal. Any thoughts on why the Yankees want Robertson when they have Chapman? Is it a replacement for Miller? I think Yankees still love idea of a super pen and think last year just didn't work out. Chapman/Betances/Robertson would be pretty super. Re: 3 team deal, in my head this is how they go down. Pirates are and were serious about getting Q. Pirates asked and found out they need to move salary in order to acquire Q. Pirates go to teams that had called in on Mccutchen when they had discussed weeks prior, the yankees being that top team left. But you can see Yankees were probably pretty loosely interested all along unless at their price, OR yankees having been brought in felt like their package alone was better than Pirates. And yeah, unless bell was included, Glasnow/Keller/Newman is a good package but not as much after 2 other pitching heavy deals for sox.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 02:47 PM) Yeah, that's a good point, but I think the optics of those two deals may be impacting things more than actual liquidity. There are teams that have the assets and that actually should be in a position to move them, but I feel like they are refusing to pay the same price because of the optics. It may just be a matter of waiting them out a bit longer while they try to play it cute. Speaking of : http://es.pn/2iapHPz I am totally fine (aside from the restless lack of closure) waiting on dealing Quintana if the deals presented feel to light to Sox scouts. But that's different than the assumption made often in this thread that the deadline is inherently better to deal in.