NCsoxfan

With good returns for both Sale and Eaton, I'm not expecting Hahn to force the issue with Q who has longer control and less injury risk (in theory). Market could change a lot by July with other suitors (not to mention new prospects emerge). No way Hahn capitulates and takes a low ball Houston offer. Patience.

Awww, Shuck

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 05:56 PM) I tend to agree. I would hate to lose Panarin, however. A young talent like him may be too hard for this organization to lose. Saad was bad, Sharp was necessary, but Panarin looks like he has a bright future and I would hate to see it in another uniform. Panarin has been the Hawks' best skater this year (I said it). Without him, the Hawks would likely have a bottom 10 offense in the league. I think you can't lose him. Order of priority should be to move Kruger, Seabrook (if there's a way), Crawford, and then Planarian.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Dec 17, 2016 -> 11:32 AM) Without Sale and Eaton, but with Moncada and a lot of possibilities for the bullpen and rotation , the Sox , at least in theory, have a chance to win a lot of games. Let's assume they do and fans start getting excited like we did last season. Do the Sox then try to plug in a DH or RF player via trade to improve the team or do they try to tank the season by making trades involving Frazier, Robertson and Mellky that will likely only bring back less than elite prospects ? Edited to qualify 20-10....I mean that they have a dominant April, I know they probably have fewer games than that.. Statistically it is possible that could happen, but there's massive mean reversion over a 162 game season, and teams generally end up playing relatively close to their expected W/L. So if it happens, it would be a lot of luck!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) Read the post, I said its a "possibility". As of now, they havent traded Quintana. Sorry, I outright reject that hypothesis. If you're trading 10 war/yr from a 76 win ball club and aren't getting back day 1 ML contributors, you're rebuilding. Could it be possible that they're happy to ALSO rid themselves of the "drake disturbers"? Of course so, but I think that's very secondary. And if I'm wrong, this organization is even more F'ed than I think so today.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) I dont think its a coincidence that the only 2 players who have been moved so far are "Drake" fans. Well see how this all goes, but there is definitely a chance that the "rebuild" was being used to distract from the real agenda, getting rid of the outspoken "Drake" fans. Guys, seriously. They're shopping Quintana, Frazier, and others as well. You wouldn't be shopping Jose Quintana if the whole purpose was to dump the Drake distractions. C'mon.

QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 03:31 PM) Robles isn't even worth Lopez Anywhere i've read, Robles > Lopez

If the Nats are feeling buyers remorse, I would offer them Lopez & Robertson for Robles. That way they'd have two bullpen arms as Lopez was talked about a conversion candidate.

QUOTE (HeGone7 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) I'd let him rebuild value after seeing what teams got at the deadline last season/paid this offseason. Robertson isn't remotely on Miller, Chapman or Jansen's level but he should be able to net at least (1) top 50 caliber prospect. I don't foresee a situation (unless he has 30 shutout innings at the deadline) where he gets much better than that. Never know though. If you're getting significantly less value right now, then I'd hold him. Same can be said for Jones. He needs to repeat last season or improve before he is even on that level. I'd hang onto him unless someone is already offering that perceived internal value they have. Everyone else can go. I sure hope, but why would a team give up a top 50 guy for Robertson?

I will go further, a contender would have to be insane to rely on Robertson to close out games based on how he looked last year.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) The market for closers is insane. The haul the Cubs gave up for two and a half months of Chapman, what the Phillies got for Giles, and the Padres got for Kimbral, coupled with the contracts given to Jansen, Kimbral, and Chapman have really raised the market value of quality late inning relievers to such an amount that makes things like Robles for Robertson not seem as crazy as it did six months ago. If Robertson reverts to form, he is going to pull in a haul this summer. I think that's such a huge "if". Teams were absolutely crushing Robertson's fastball this year. I don't know if it was just that he was tired on back to back games, or if he's regressing. I would probably dump him now rather than risk it.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) http://www.minorleagueball.com/2016/12/12/...spects-for-2017 John Sickels' take on the Astros farm for those interested. Just from his descriptions (and nothing else), I'd be more willing to roll the dice on the younger guys such as Perez/Laureano/Hernandez/Sierra to fill out a package headlined by Tucker/Martes. Guys like Fisher/Reed/Stubbs seem less interesting, even if they have a higher floor.

Hahn really does hold the cards. Two comparable trades have set the market, and Lunhow doesn't really have a ton of other options. What this is setting up for IMO, is a much deeper & stronger minor league package, once Hahn lets go of Musgrove.

I am not enamored with Musgrove and would def take a package centered around Tucker/Martes & two more

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:00 PM) Yeah cubs have a bit of an unknown with Fowler gone but get a big plus with Schwarber. Wouldn't be shocked to see a little championship hangover too. Would think it's hard to have as much motivation and hunger after you win it.

Martes' delivery is so herky-jerky http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2...;vkey=news_milb

I have been looking at the Braves prospects and I'm highly impressed with Ronald Acuna'a potential. I think a package of Albies, Maitan, Acuna + more would be really interesting. Super talented positional players

The amount of anchoring people have to the BA 100 list is crazy. I wonder if even the clubs themselves are influenced

Interesting to read this thread from the beginning now that Eaton has been dealt

Is there any chatter about Colorado or are we just speculating they'd be a good match?

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) Please explain why a team that needs pitching would be willing to trade away 2 starters, to get just one back, especially when one of them is their number one prospect and ready to contribute next year. 1. Because they want to win now 2. A prospect being "ready" now doesn't mean they'll be good now 3. No guarantee any of them pan out 4. "Their number one prospect" means nothing. Some team's number one prospects aren't even highly rated 5. Because that's the price if they want an ace pitcher & the Sale/Eaton trades have shown this

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 12:39 PM) 0 problem with that ask. I'd have a problem if they asked for less than that. Zero incentive to give away Q just to trade him.

Based on the Sale/Eaton trades, I'm semi-confident that the Sox ask is Martes, Tucker, Fisher, and Reed. If they don't get it, they should keep Q for the interim. Very plausible a team is even more desperate at the deadline & I see little injury risk for Quintana.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 02:30 PM) Why are you assuming that all 3 were ever in a deal though? We aren't going to get all 3 of Martes, Reed, and Tucker. The deal would have been made already. Given all of the pitching we've already received I'd be just fine with starting the deal at Tucker and Reed. The 3rd prospect would have to be pretty good though given neither Tucker or Reed are great headliners. David Paulino is a name that still seems expendable to them and would just be fun to add another power arm to the stable. Maybe not "95%", but I think Tucker, Reed, and Paulino isn't too far off from Moncada, Kopech, and Basabe. Obviously trying to recreate a headliner like Moncada is impossible and everything else will seem to fall short, but I really like Tucker. I think in 3-4 years he could be hitting .300 /.350/.450 with 15-20 hr's and 25-30 steals. His glove and athleticism are both good and as of right now he's still being projected in CF. Kyle Tucker, AJ Reed, David Paulino and Gilberto Celestino. I'd take that for Q. I know Reed isn't on many lists anymore but or all intents and purposes that's 3 top 75 prospects and a recent fairly large international signing. I think the only way Q is deal is if all three are involved. Unlike the Nats & Red Sox, they don't have a top 10 prospect if you exclude Bregman. Martes/Tucker are both top 50 guys, but you need AT LEAST both of them to start a conversation of dealing Q. Like the Fangraphs article said, Q's value is very close to Sale's. Your analysis just far undervalues Q, IMO.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 02:21 PM) What about Robles if the Sox include Robertson plus Nate Jones, or pick up part of Robertson's remaining Contract. I guess I am trying to figure our how our Sox can get a decent position player prospect instead of Moncada plus a slough of pitching prospects. You know, desperation may be setting in for Rizzo since he whiffed on a few trades already. Sounds like they wouldve only moved Robles for Sale. And if we couldn't pry him for Eaton, there's zero chance we get him for relievers