bmags

I find houston's deals to be just too extreme. The tactic of only calling up players that signed extension was a gross tactic. But the Sox deals were mutually beneficial. It just so happens Sale's arm didn't explode, but if it had he would have still been set for life.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:23 PM) Seriously people. Guy is obviously a troll, or not an actual baseball/White Sox fan. Ignore, ignore, ignore. Anyway, on topic, I would say some form of Torres/Frazier/Rutherford is significantly better than any non-Bregman package the Astros could offer, and up there with a Rodgers/Dahl conversation. I would take the bolded over each package you mentioned (except a magical Bregman re-entry).

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:18 PM) Even if we give you the absurd premise that Quintana has faced "zero pressure", do you have any evidence that it's more difficult to put up numbers on a good team versus a bad team? Hell you could argue that it's actually more difficult to put up good numbers with no pressure because it's harder to keep the same motivation, and pitching on bad teams means having to pitch over more handicaps like poor catchers/defense behind you, both of which Q has had to deal with plenty. Good point. Sale on his way out was complimented by sox staff for how he continued to compete even as seasons dropped away from us.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:09 PM) If you're about to start a family you're going to want the house, the cars, your the security of your wife never needing to find work for the next 18 years right now, not 4 or 5 years from now. We are talking millions of dollars. What is the worst of these deals? Altuve? Sox's deals with Sale/Q/Eaton were nowhere near as damning after the player turned out. Sale is getting 38 million over next 3 years, far below market value, but enough to buy a car.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:12 PM) I mean I get what I am reading. But it makes zero sense to me. It is just so simplistic in the statement, that I would hope there is some amount of depth or logic to the point. This really seems to be going down the road of wins and losses, and I really hope that isn't it, because that falls into just an indefensible category in the 21st century. I mean, how about the pressure of constantly only being provided 1-2 runs of support every night out while trying to get your team a win?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:08 PM) Since Quintana has no pressure, that means the opposing player has no pressure, since Quintana has been able to dominate opposing players in the box. Its all relative, when players show up to the Cell....um, G Rate, they feel no need to win the game because the Sox arent good, so they just let Quintana beat them since he doesnt have any pressure either. So, in summary, Quintanas numbers dont mean anything because nobody feels any pressure in the field where the White Sox play, therefore all numbers generated in the field where the White Sox play dont mean anything because Josh McCown No, you don't understand. Q is the backup QB so he has only played against the 2nd unit (that's why it's the number 2 starter, they play the number 2 team). If he's traded to a GOOD team and is their number 1, he'll have to start playing their number 1 players and that's harder. It's just baseball, Kyyle.

Chris Tillman - ACE Quintana - BACKUP QUARTERBACK

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 02:00 PM) Players often will accept the security that an early extension will bring them. One injury and their value can tank big time. The players view is that they cannot get too greedy and would rather ensure their families' future early, rather than roll the dice seeking a huge payday. Sale, Eaton and Quintana will still hit free agency young enough to land one more significant contract This was actually discussed on effectively wild today. Sox struck well. For Sale, he had injury uncertainty. Whereas Q/Eaton, Sox offered reasonable deals so early they had not been established yet. It pays out their pre arb years and gave modest raises in arb years in exchange for additional time. It's attractive regardless of what the team does because you get certainty for players that saw betting on themselves as risky. But, if this ends, I bet it ends because free agent deals become so absurdly huge that betting on yourself is just too lobsided that you have to.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) I get that the potential can be higher on the younger guys, but the bust rate is a lot higher. I'm not saying take a Judge over a Torres, that would be insane (incidentally, Judge is the type of player I could see the Sox FO falling in love with that they need to avoid like the plague). What I'm saying is if you're taking a Torres for a Q, that's not nearly enough and I'd rather have a Frazier than a Rutherford as the second piece so that we're not looking at extremely high bust rates on the whole return. Like it or not, someone who's made it to AAA while maintaining their prospect status is a lot more likely to give you a solid everyday contributor than the guy who may someday be a superstar, but is in A ball today. I understand you, but let's assume with an actual second bidder that the astros would deal Musgrove, Martes and Tucker for Q. You have 2 near major leaguers there in Musgrove/Martes (musgrove is) The Yankees get involved but insist they need Frazier for next year but offer Gleybar Torres, Blake Rutherford, Andjuhar and Chance Adams Which would you take? Though inherently riskier, I would take Yankees package.

QUOTE (almagest @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) I was expecting proposals like "We'll give them Texiera and Headley for Quintana, Robertson and Frazier" but those are all actually sane. They seem to be thinking the same as us - they've got a ton of hitting prospects and we have the pitching they used to have need. Also their logic that the yankees will need to stay under luxury tax after recent CBA changes and Q helps with that.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) Would you trade Q for a bunch of rookie and A ballers? I wouldn't, too much risk. I would for the right rookies and a ballers because I don't find that to be a helpful descriptor for the type of talent you are getting back. I value Torres much higher than Judge even though Judge made show last year.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) I like Fisher and Call a lot. I just like them even more in the 10-20 range rather than our top ten.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:34 PM) Sale netted #1 and #30, so 2 top 50 isn't out of the question, Q is nearly as good as Sale if hype is ignored and production analyzed. So, fine, how about Torres, Frazier, Andujar, Montgomery? My problem isn't necessarily with a Torres/Frazier package, it's mostly how our hypotheticals throw in additional top 100 prospects like they are of little consequence. I think the above trade is closer to possilbe but it would not shock me if Frazier is one Yanks want to keep due to him being a reasonable bet for 2017.

Holy crap I found something strange in the internet. Check out this entirely reasonable article and comment section from yankees fans: http://www.pinstripealley.com/yankees-rumo...-trade-interest

I am only alive if I get two great performances from Greg Olsen and Kirk Cousins. Down 40 points. It's possible, at least.

Regardless, Soxtalk should send Morosi a fruit basket for the tweet. We were starting to talk about Ryan Howard for goodness sake.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:22 PM) That's probably a better package than what they got for Sale. Yes, 4 top 100 including 2 top 50 is an insane package. Per the bmags soxtalk-value-to-actual value formula, you take out the 2nd and 4th best player in that package and you are a lot closer to a trade.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) From Andrew Marchand of ESPN: Well, Morosi's was at least a source, the above is just analysis and punditry.

Would be kind of cool if Howard went to Indy ball.

I really would want Torres back. Look at this scouting report and tell me you wouldn't bet on these skills over other players we are discussing:

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) I think it's Torres / Frazier + or a deal isn't happening I'm not huge on Mateo or Judge I think that's a strange line in the sand. As others have said, Torres, Rutherford and Andjjuhar (sorry for spelling) would net you 3 likely top 100 prospects. All are risky because of age, but I have a hard time saying that is much worse than Martes, Tucker, Musgrove except Martes may be best in deal.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) Mateo stock is going down. Deal would have to include Torres and Frazier, which seems unlikely I dont' think it has to include Frazier. I could definitely make a package without him.

QUOTE (bruni @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 11:48 AM) I'll take Mateo (mmmm... grade 80 speed...), Rutherford, Andujar & Sands please and thank you. Get 'er done Rick! Isn't it interesting. Do we get more bang asking for Mateo, who had a down year last year, or should we continue asking for these helium guys like Torres. Mateo is scary, since he has now had a down year with no Torres-like redeeming second half, and has a lot of risk because unlike Torres he's not as good drawing walks. He reminds me a lot of a faster Tim Anderson with the potential for more power but just potential now. Just judging by what Hostetler has valued elswhere, I can see us pushing for Torres in any package.

QUOTE (Fantl916 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) this is counter-intuitive to why the yankees would trade for a pitcher... they already have 2017 rotation depth issues, so why would they subtract a good sp to add a better one? if they're trading a part of their future you can surely assume that it's in part to be competitive sooner, and as such you'd almost have to assume they'd balk at including any piece that subtracts from their major league roster. I think the main flaw in this thinking is you think Pineda is good. But regardless, the only reference anyone made about Pineda was from me, and it was about taking on a reclamation project like him largely outside a Quintana framework.. I think you over estimate the market for below average starting pitchers with 1 year left on their deal. His last two years starting Pineda has an average ERA of 4.59. However, his FIP is lower and there is a chance he'd be a good 1-for-1 dump if you think you know something others don't. If you want to apply that stuff to Severino, Judge, Sanchez, etc, I get it, but Pineda isn't that.

QUOTE (Fantl916 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) Guys, there's no way we'd be getting Pineda, Severino or any other player (ie Judge) who's on the Yankees 2017 major league roster. If 125+ pages of this topic has taught us anything, it's that no team is going to include anyone on their actual roster + super sweet prospects for a sweet addition to their roster. The only exception we maybe have to that so far is Reynaldo Lopez, who was prob a bullpen piece for Washington. I think you'd have to look at some combo of guys 1-2 years away like Torres, Frazier, Rutherford, etc. with depth pieces like Andujar, Kaiperan, etc. Pineda only has a year left and was bad last year. He's not part of their current or future plans beside innings eater and hoping he finally harnesses his stuff.