Lillian

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Feb 18, 2017 -> 02:51 PM) Any pitcher, no matter where he is ranked, carries more risk than a position player would because of potential arm injury. That could explain why owners would be reticent to part with a premier position player prospect(s) for Q. IMO.. Imagine if Sale blows out his arm after two or three starts.. Yes, and imagine if one of these prospective teams opts to spend $100 Million on a comparable pitcher, through free agency. The fact that Q is so affordable greatly mitigates the very risk, to which you allude.

How feasible is the possibility of Fisher returning to his original position of catcher? How hard is it for a catcher to come back from a torn labrum? This quote from Hostetler, shortly after Fisher was drafted, is why I ask: "We were actually debating about where to announce him at catcher, outfielder or first base," Hostetler said. "Probably let him try a little bit of all of them, maybe even catch a little bit."

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 15, 2017 -> 03:44 PM) No kidding. This thread should be retitled Hotel California. Why? Is it because "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"?

Not that I think the Sox should accept such a deal, but what would the Pirates have to offer, if they were allowed to take both their number 1 and 2 prospects off the table? Without either Glasnow or Meadows, wouldn't the starting point have to be Bell, Keller, Newman? I would guess that most of us would at least want another one, or two players. I don't think that Pittsburg has 4 or 5 good enough prospects, without either Meadows or Glasnow. What is even more frustrating is that it appears that Huntington wouldn't even go that far.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Torres + Frazier is a bit much to be demanding of the Yankees and if Hahn really isn't budging off that demand I'm getting a little worried. Lots of talk about Quintana's value and what the Sox should get for him...Quintana's value is the most another team is willing to pay. Now Hahn's job to play salesman and get that highest price, but being ridiculous isn't productive. As for the waiting until Hahn's "price is met". If I have a base model Ford Focus that I'm trying to sell for $50,000 and nobody wants to buy it I cant just say "well have fun taking the BUS" and expect someone to come crawling back in a year to buy my Ford Focus (that is now a year older btw) for a giant pile of money. Time is not going to magically concoct a new market for Jose Quintana out of thin air, if anything his market shrinks as the 2017-18 FA bonanza draws nearer. There will be more competition at the deadline too, some of those impending FA's will be available as rentals. I disagree. Torres and Frazier is not unreasonable for Quintana. in fact, I would want one more, lesser piece, as well. I hope that Hahn sticks to his demands.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 01:31 PM) Can we stop for a second to acknowledge this: The Yankees acquired Frazier for 2.5 years of a relief pitcher, and Torres for half a season of a relief pitcher. First of all, what an extraordinary strike of good fortune. Second, how strange that, a few months later, both seem off the table for four years of a starting pitcher!! Yes, the Indians/Cubs and Yankees were in different situations, but still. Should be able to give some better perspective on Quintana's trade value and market. Very well put, and a compelling argument.

Of course you can never have too much pitching. The issue is not that it would be problematic to have too many pitchers. The issue is that there also needs to be a core of good position players. Quintana is our trading chip to acquire a couple of those core players. While it's true that one or more of the pitchers could later be traded for hitting, why take the chance that such a deal may materialize, when they have the chance to acquire them now? The Sox should be putting together a balanced roster of young players, not simply a great pitching staff.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) If that is the scouting report, I don't know why anyone would trade a #1 or #2 starter signed for 4 years at a bargain for a package headlined by a guy who might be almost as good if everything goes right. My sentiments, exactly. If the Sox can't acquire 1, or 2 top position prospects, they might as well just keep Quintana. I fully expect that some team is going to blink and include one of the "untouchable" position prospects, whom we have been discussing The Sox will likely get either Bregman, Frazier, Meadows, or someone comparable, plus other pieces. I personally would like a package from the Yankees which included Frazier, Acevedo and either Mateo or Torres. I understand that Cashman is determined not to trade his top prospects, but that's what it should take to acquire Q.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 04:44 PM) Scott merkin said astros high on tucker and wouldn't be in a deal. Of course, and the Sox are "high on Q." So what? Therefore, the best position player prospect that the Astros are willing to include is the #83 prospect in baseball, Fisher. If this is true, I hope Hahn tells Houston to stop wasting his time and stops negotiating with them, until they are ready to be reasonable.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 18, 2016 -> 08:36 AM) If you couldn't get Bregman for Sale, you're not getting him for Quintana. And adding Frazier doesn't change that. As BlackSox13 says; "Then they can keep him". Thanks for the input.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 18, 2016 -> 08:43 AM) Whoa, slow up for just a minute. I like the idea of Bregman as much as anyone but in no way, shape or form is it a good idea to trade both Q and Frazier for Bregman. If that's what it takes to get Bregman then Houston can keep him. The Sox will find the right fit for a Quintana trade, just takes some time and patience. Same for Frazier, though we may end up waiting until July which is fine. Trading Q and Frazier in separate deals is the best way to get more talent into the Sox farm. Would you take Bregman, Tucker, Reed, one of their highly ranked pitching prospects and one more prospect for both Quintana and Frazier?

Not having read every post in this thread, I would insist that a deal with Houston start with Bregman. I understand their reluctance to part with him, but the deal for Sale set the bar pretty high. Would including Frazier, to replace Bregman at third, satisfy the Astros? I recognize that Frazier is only one season from free agency. Nevertheless, what would be a fair return for Quintana and Frazier?

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) 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 Martes is the #5 RH pitching prospect in baseball. I really doubt that this happens.

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.

This article might be of interest: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/davi...ke-baseball-fan

So Chicago would be a "Sanctuary City", which violates the Second Amendment and my favorite team would be owned by Barak Obama. So, exactly why would I be a Sox fan? Oh, never mind, I wouldn't be.

I've been a Sox fan for over 60 years, however it would be very difficult for me to root for them, if they were owned by Obama. I'm afraid that I just couldn't subordinate my political ideology to that degree. As someone who reveres America's founding principles of liberty and limited government, that would be awfully hard to accept. Where did you see this story?

I hope that this is some kind of a joke, a bad joke.

Not having read all of these posts, in the various related threads, the question that keeps nagging me is; How long would it take, and with what probability, could this team build a contender, with both Sale and Quintana gone? This question is particularly relevant if the Sox focus upon position players, in their return of prospects.

I think that one additional factor which favors Boston is that they can afford to trade several top prospects. It is quite apparent that they want to win now, and Sale could make the difference for them. They won't need Benintendi, with Betts and JBJ in their outfield. They have enough depth at 3RD, to part with Devers. They can afford to trade at least one of their young starters, if they acquire Sale. Despite Dombrowski's insistence that he won't part with Moncada, they don't need him either, for this championship run. Even if Chicago couldn't pry all of those guys loose, there is Travis, as a substitute for one of Moncada or Devers.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 15, 2016 -> 09:08 AM) Drafting well with your #1 is a priority as well. The Sox have had middling results with their top picks. (Cubs in brackets) 2011 was a total waste - (No #1), Walker, Soptic (Javier Baez) The 2012 draft has been a bust - Hawkins, Barnum, Beck (Albert Almora Jr.) 2013 has been better but its still needs time to grow - Anderson, Danish, May (Kris Bryant) 2014 has potential also, but hasn't been impact yet. - Rodon, Adams, Frye (Kyle Schwarber) 2015 is still green - Fulmer, (no #2 or #3) (Ian Happ) 2016 is inconsequential at this point - Collins, Burdi, Hansen, Call Don't forget Jameson Fisher, in the 2016 class.

The Red Sox already have two southpaws in their rotation, with Price and Rodriguez. It would be historically unprecedented for them to have 3 left starters. The presence of the short left field "Green Monster" has always dictated that their rotation be primarily right handed. Therefore, while they have they pieces to trade for a top of the rotation starter, I don't see how they would target Sale. What am I missing here?

QUOTE (Lillian @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 06:40 PM) I don't quite understand how similar WAR numbers, compiled during a full season, can be compared when it comes down to the Post Season. If you had to choose between substituting one of Boston's starters for Sale, versus replacing JB Jr., with some lesser centerfielder, in game one of the Post season, would it really be a difficult choice? My mind is open, but that doesn't make sense to me. In further researching this question, I can't seem to find the answer. WAR is calculated over an entire season. If a pitcher only appears in approximately 20% of the games, yet is able to produce the same wins over replacement as a position player, that would seem to indicate that he is much more valuable, in any given single game. That is consistent with everything else, which we know about the game, i.e.; "pitching is 80% of the game" and "Good pitching will always stop good hitting". Therefore, as I said in my previous post; A starter like Sale is much more valuable and critical, in a single post season game, than a player like Jackie Bradley Jr., even though they have approximately the same WAR. Could someone please clarify this for me?

QUOTE (gatnom @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 12:37 PM) He was a 4.9 WAR player last year (to Sale's 5.2) and is under control for 1 more year. I agree he's less valuable, but it's closer than you think. I don't quite understand how similar WAR numbers, compiled during a full season, can be compared when it comes down to the Post Season. If you had to choose between substituting one of Boston's starters for Sale, versus replacing JB Jr., with some lesser centerfielder, in game one of the Post season, would it really be a difficult choice? My mind is open, but that doesn't make sense to me.

How funny! I didn't think about RV being the initials for Robin. However, the mention of "camping" should have given you a clue. Sorry.