bighurt574

Depends what they can get, but I'm not sure trading Trout is going to magically rejuvenate the franchise. We at least had 3 elite pieces to move. They're a long way from contending either way. They may be better off just holding him to give the fans something to show up for. I assume any package would require a combo of young MLB talent plus prospects. You could certainly envision a team like the Cubs putting together some interesting proposals.

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.

It is hard to get full value for 4 years of control, IMO. There are some diminishing returns in there. Barring injury or slump, Q will demand a roughly similar package at the trade deadline or a year from now. It's just a matter of finding the right deal. No need to panic and cave in the next month if the right deal isn't coming along.

Some of these feel like Pit is giving up a lot. Could be getting additional pieces from either us or NY.

To state the obvious, we really need to start drafting and developing better, especially when it comes to position players. It's always frustrating to see all these well-stocked farm systems and then we have to give up a Chris Sale or Jose Quintana just to catch up.

QUOTE (TRU @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 06:35 PM) Not gonna lie, im starting to lean in that direction as well. Moncada, Giolito, Lopez are all guys who could not only start on the OD roster, but will more than likely make it there this season.. If Quintana gets traded, its definitely a full on rebuild.. but man, there is a lot of evidence to suggest, at the least, that they got rid of the two problem children Unless the Sox are flat out lying, they've made pretty clear they'll be giving these guys plenty of time to develop in the minors. And if this wasn't a rebuild, they would have seemingly been more active on the free agent market.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) Ha, I have been thinking the same thing, especially with Benintendi, Devers and Robles. The Sox have made the best decisions they can based on the information they have now, so you can't fault them if the "other guys" pan out and Moncada, et. al. bust. But it will be fascinating to follow! Of course, we have no idea how many of these "other guys" were even available in trade.

I'd target position prospects all things being equal, but if we really like some other pitcher, I don't see the issue. Besides failing and/or trades, it wouldn't be crazy if someone ended up in the bullpen too.

Using the Sale deal as a rough template, you'd think a Q deal with the Pirates would look something like: Glasnow or Meadows (the Moncada piece) Bell or Newman (the Koepech piece) and a few second tier guys Q isn't quite Sale, but Glasnow/Medows aren't quite Moncada either.

I don't know, if Houston had offered Bregman, it probably would have been in our interest to leak it.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 18, 2016 -> 08:15 AM) Would you take Bregman, Tucker, Reed, one of their highly ranked pitching prospects and one more prospect for both Quintana and Frazier? No chance Houston does that. If they were to cave and include Bregman, they're not going to include Bregman AND a bunch of top prospects like he's some sort of throw in. It would likely be an either/or scenario. Including Frazier doesn't really change that. If Houston would part with Bregman, Sox would be lucky to get one other top prospect along with him and a few lower level guys. That's basically the Sale deal. We're not going to top that for Q (and Frazier).

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 11:26 AM) That's the faulty logic in the article The chance that Quintana delivers on his surplus value over the next 4 seasons is way higher than the chance those three prospects pan out and produce. That's true, but the flip side is that the prospects are more likely than Quintana to exceed their projected surplus values. There's more upside and downside risk with prospects, and the projected surplus values, at least in theory, are supposed to take that into account. So you basically get some middle number somewhere between best and worst case scenarios. The range for a Quintana is much narrower.

Right, I believe the risk is taken into account, but it still makes the prospect projections a lot more volatile than a guy with a five-year MLB track record. A rebuilding team can afford to take on that volatility a lot more than a team planning to contend the next few years.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) Three 2 WAR players do not equal the value of one 6 WAR player, as 6 WAR players are vastly harder to find. A good point, especially for a deep organization like Houston with plenty of other options to plug in to the lineup. For the Sox the past few years, three 2 WAR players and one 6 WAR player might have been closer to equal. Position players at least.

Match? For Robertson it can't be that tough to find an intriguing prospect or two. We're not talking about a Q deal here.

The teams that would be interested in Robertson (e.g., Washington) aren't going to really care about the $$$ on his deal to give up a bigger return if the Sox eat some of it.

Seriously, imagine Jones' value if he puts up similar numbers as a closer with his contract.

If Robertson can show that he's still his old self, he could easily net a top-50 prospect at the deadline with 1.5 years of control at a reasonable enough contract. He wasn't even that bad last year, he just needs to get the walks down. On the flip side, if we can find a taker for Robertson now, we can try to build Jones' value as a closer.

The regular season value of Sale vs. Q isn't all that different with Q's extra year of control, but the thought of having Sale in your rotation for the postseason is really what makes GM drool and offer up an "untouchable" prospect. Especially if you're already a playoff team looking for that "final piece." In a Q for Bregman swap, if Houston would even do it, you're not going to get much else. Maybe an extra low level prospect or two.

The other problem with ERA and closers is that with only ~60-70 innings pitched, one bad outing or two (perhaps aided by shoddy fielding) can really inflate the thing. With a starter, if you get rocked over say 3 innings, you can largely work that off with a few quality starts. As a closer, you may need a few months.

We'd be fortunate to get a top 100 prospect for Robertson. They're waiting for Jansen to sign so hopefully whoever loses out antes up. Robertson probably isn't a bad candidate to hold until the trade deadline and hope for a rebound. If he comes out strong, he could really help his value.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) I think the Nationals makes less sense than the Astros. Their 2-year window means Quintana's extra year of control isn't as valuable to them. Nationals also have a pretty solid/deep rotation already. I get their interest in Sale, but I'm not sure they'd raid the farm for Quintana. Seems like if you're already a playoff team (e.g., Boston, Washington), Sale is the guy you want for October. If you're not already a playoff team, Quintana might make more sense.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) I don't see where Desmond has ever played 1B. Rockies have a surplus of OF, and, other than 1B, their IF is set. I don't know what they are thinking, but I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them try to move Blackmon somewhere and then try to make a push for Abreu. They would be an interesting landing spot for Q as well, and definitely have the prospects to get it done. I don't know if it's wise, but reports are that they signed him largely to play 1B.

I mentioned Soler for Robertson a few days back. Looks like the Cubs shot a little higher.

If they signed Desmond to play 1B, they'e presumably out on Abreu.