iamshack

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 09:52 PM) They paid up for elite relievers in a huge seller's market. The market dynamics could be totally different this coming July, especially for starting pitchers. I get there is the chance one GM does something crazy out of desperation, but the odds of that are low and not worth the risk of injury or underperformance reducing Quintana's value IMO. Also, GMs at the deadline typically value immediate production vs. long term production, especially if they have multiple holes to fill. Look at what the Dodgers did with Reddick & Hill. They went the rental route instead cashing in any of their elite prospects for a cost-controlled difference maker. I no doubt agree there is typically a premium paid at the deadline, but there is also a limit on how much teams will pay in an individual trade, which is one of the main reasons teams shop in the short-term bin. Every once in a while you may see a Cole Hamels trade, but everything must line up right in terms of supply, demand, prospect capital, & appetite in order for that to happen. Again, I just don't see the odds of getting a far more desirable return six to 12 months from now being that great. What we've seen this offseason is most of these limitations that typically impact GMs in-season are now being carried over into the offseason. I've commented on it quite a bit. No teams want to move anyone that might be needed this year, especially if they have multiple holes to fill. We are in a sellers market and yet no buyers are budging. I don't see these things really making a trade at the deadline any more difficult than it is today and I don't buy into the "Q won't be worth as much in a buyer's market." A great asset is a great asset in any market. What we're seeing right now in terms of this offseason is quite incredible if you ask me. The lengths these potential buyers have gone to to retain their prospects is unlike anything I've seen before. I guess we'll simply have to see who blinks first.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 09:12 PM) There will also be different sellers in the game come the trade deadline. Quintana will be less attractive to many teams when rentals are available at a far more affordable price. Next offseason, the big market teams will have a variety of pitching options to choose from that only cost money. That leaves mid-market teams and there is no guarantee they'll still have massive holes in their rotation (Astros) or will still be going for it (Pirates). And let's not ignore there are realistically only a handful of teams that have the prospect capital to land Quintana. I just can't find any rational argument for why we think we'd get more six or 12 months from now. The offers received this offseason should pretty much indicate Quintana's value IMO. The same reason Cubs and Indians paid up. Pressure on GMs. Pressure on GMs who may not be around when some prospect hits the bigs in a year or two.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:50 PM) I'd rather have quality AA-A ball players as well. Teams are so stingy with prospects though. I think the Pirates eventually cave because they have to. But I dont think it'll be Meadows. So who gets it done from Pitt outside of Meadows for you?

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:29 PM) Hopefully your not expecting to get MLB Ready Prospects in that case. No, but not so far away that they become incredibly risky either. I'd rather take on a bit more risk and get a better package though than feel like I am settling because I allow the other team to completely dictate terms.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:25 PM) No. I'm banking on there being teams in the pennant race in July. It doesn't have to be the Pirates and Astros. I predict that by July there will be teams in a pennant race, some of whom will need pitching. Honestly, I would be surprised if both of those teams are in the race given the setup of their rotations - one of them is going to have enough bad luck that they'll drop out like they did last year. But there will be a pennant chase, and due to the fact that there will be a pennant chase, there will be teams who decide they want to win that pennant. Prospects we aren't looking at right now will have good first halves and look better. If the Pirates and Astros think they're fine now, good luck to them. The market will exist in June. Exactly.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:07 PM) I was being sarcastic. Your taking a risk with prospects we all know that. But I dont see how not trading him is a good thing. Maybe if the free agent compensation didnt change I would be singing a different tune. I think maybe we need to accept these teams value Q at a place where the White Sox are not at and that's all it's going to be. What do the White Sox do then? I dont see the value staying even level in that case. It definitely carries some risk, which is why I've argued that the price goes up, not down once the season starts. But I do think that the pressure to put a competitive team over the top sometimes trumps these bs games these GMs are playing at the moment.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:07 PM) I'm glad Sox are sticking to guns, I don't mean to sound like I want to wave a white flag. I guess my stance is if our floors on this trade are Glasnow/Keller/Newman/and Hayes or a 4th or Martes/Tucker/Paulino/4th, then I already feel good. We are talking about 4 top ten prospects from the best farms in the game. Few players command that. I just might take that package from the Pirates.. I don't feel comfortable with Martes for some reason from the Astros.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:03 PM) and Q blows out his arm. Trade him now or keep him. Oh come on. This guy is basically the second coming of Mark Buehrle. The odds of that are remote.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:57 PM) They said they would have put AB ahead of Moncada so the Boston deal was their 2/3/8/30 prospects for sale. 3/4/5 is comparable. OTOH this is a bad way to evaluate trades. Yeah, that was a lazy post by me. The point I am making is that Moncada/Kopech are stronger prospects by a long shot than Glasnow and Bell IMHO. Newman doesn't make up for that in his value over Basabe and Diaz.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:52 PM) Waiting until the deadline is dangerous. What if Glasnow is pitching? What if Martes is pitching for the Astros? They probably wont want to move those guys if they are contributing to the team. Then your screwed. Look at the free agent list next offseason plus with the change in compensation. I'd tell the White Sox to screw themselves with that asking price with the free agent market becoming much more friendly. I don't think we can accept something less than we're comfortable with out of fear of that.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:46 PM) Not that these are the end all be all and clearly they are a bit out of date, but here are Baseball America's mid-season rankings: 1. Moncada 4. Giolito 6. Glasnow 10. Meadows 38. Bell 48. Lopez 51. Newman 72. Hayes 93. Kopech* (top 30 to 40 now) 100 - 150: Basabe & Dunning Anyways, the point of this exercise was to show how a proposed Glasnow, Bell, Newman return compares to those of the Sale & Eaton deals. And while Glasnow's stock has slipped a bit, I don't see much of an argument for him not being a top 20 prospect still. His value is comparable to Giolito's and I'd say Bell's is comparable to Lopez's. However, Newman is a far superior prospect to Dunning, which makes the overall return better than the Eaton deal. And honestly, it's probably not too far off from the Sale deal, although I think Moncada is such an elite prospect makes it a clear cut better return. I think asking for a fourth prospect, especially one like Hayes, is asking for too much. I'd feel pretty comfortable saying with Hayes included that's a better return than what we got for Sale and I don't see that happening. I was just going off some of the other stuff that said Bell may not be available. Looking at BA's recent rankings, they put Glasnow/Bell/Newman as Pittsburgh's 3/4/5 prospects. I don't think that compares to Boston's package at all.

QUOTE (pablo @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:42 PM) The thought of not getting one of Meadows or Bell would be frustrating for me. But it's a decent package. Since its come down to the Astros and Pirates, Sox need to get one of Meadows, Bell or Tucker in a deal. And not because of the "Sox have too much pitching argument" but because those are the three best players of all the prospects mentioned between Astros or pirates and one of them at least needs acquired in a Q deal. Yeah, I agree it has the feeling of settling, doesn't it? While that may be the case, getting 4 of the Pirates top 6 prospects is alluring and I do feel like the potential is there to still really end up as a big winner in this deal. I think if I was Hahn I would pass on any deal that doesn't include Meadows or Bregman, and wait til the deadline. Odds are these same deals will still be there with the possibility for something better.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 06:59 PM) No, I waited out to see what the next gen would bring. I'll likely get this one. How about you? I just happened to stumble on the Fenix 3 as a result of this crazy bike thing I am doing. Lot of good reviews about the heart rate data available on the 3. Starting to research heart rate training so I was interested in maybe replacing my Apple watch with one of these suckers. I'm sure the 5 will be even better.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 07:23 PM) If you can get Glasnow, Bell, & Newman you take that deal immediately. Short of landing Meadows, you can't do better than that IMO. Not feeling that Astros deal at all. Would want Martes over Perez and would need a better fourth piece than Martin. Glasnow/Keller/Newman/Hayes?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 10:26 AM) Salivating over the announced Garmin Fenix 5. Do you have the 3?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:07 PM) New CBA shows severe restriction on consistently being above the luxury tax. Significant restrictions on overspending on INTL. Those same teams are loading up prospects because they can't afford to spend their way through victories anymore. Remember when EE to boston was a done deal? Yeah they are going to the season replacing David Ortiz with Mitch Moreland. There's no reason to throw up our hands and say woe is us. Edit: oh yeah, and EE went and signed with CLEVELAND I mean we may as well just fold up our tent and go home...

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 11:30 AM) Sox wouldn't have spent on Lackey, and haven't the Cubs spent a lot more on international draftees? Why not? And the Cubs have spent on international players, but that is nothing the Sox cannot do with a significantly reduced MLB payroll.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) It is also why the Sox rebuild is more likely to fail than the Cubs. Cubs fans allowed them to spend during their rebuild. That isn't going to happen here. The Cubs have primarily spent on TWO players that the Sox probably wouldn't have. 1) Lester is something we will try to develop internally; and 2) Heyward has really not contributed significantly to their success. I'm not trying to glaze over the value of an TOR by any means, but that is exactly what we've been acquiring in regards to prospects in these deals. If you want to talk about how the Cubs rebuild has been different, stick with their focus on positional talent because of their belief that it is more projectable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 09:46 AM) Right there's the problem - just from guys in the organization already you've listed 5 starters, all of whom we can legitimately expect to be demanding big league innings by the 2nd half of 2018 barring injury. Add in Glasnow...and which guy doesn't get a big league shot? Or which guy goes to the bullpen? If you give me a guy like Keller, fine he gets stuck at A ball this year and he's not arriving until 2019 at the earliest and by then we'll at least have given those top 5 a chance to see if any of them are going to flop, he's down there with Hansen so there's continuing depth building up, but the slash you've already put in there shows the problem. You're not running out a 6 person rotation in 2018, and you're not going to cut one of those guys loose if they struggle in 2017 in their first callup. I get it, but there are much worse problems to have. If we actually do reach some point where we have 5 studs in the MLB, and 5 studs in Charlotte, and 5 studs in Birmingham, we can worry. That time is nowhere close to today.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 04:46 PM) When do we see you in the Tour de France? Speaking of this, some crazy bastard is doing a 100 mile ride on the Peloton today. He's over 90 miles right now...crazy s***.

QUOTE (Username @ Jan 8, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) The Cubs have made it known that they've been searching for cost-controlled starters for awhile. Arrieta is a likely goner next year, as well as Lackey. Plus Lester isn't getting any younger despite still being great. More importantly, they'll need to extend their core within the next few years or risk players becoming probitively expensive. That Heyward contract is a real bad anchor, and they've got a ton of money allocated to Lester as well. They don't NEED Q like the Astros do. But it greatly improves the outlook of their future roster. Plus, their top prospects are blocked for the foreseeable future. They don't need Happ and Jimenez (who probably has to shift off center), and two top 20 prospects that can hit is a great start on a package. Edit: and before anyone tells me the Cubs don't need money, look at the Yankees/Red Sox. Even huge market teams have to be conscious on contract planning. Yeah, I mean Q is basically like a staple ingredient. Any franchise can utilize him very easily. The difference is who has the surplus assets in their organization to acquire him? In the case of the Cubs, in my mind, they have one of the best fits possible, because they have the surplus assets AND the competition window in place. They are basically to Quintana what the Red Sox were for us for Sale.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 8, 2017 -> 08:19 AM) So there will be a lot more pitching available next year. Cubs do not need or are desperate to have Quintana this year. The reason q will get a haul is because of the favorable market. There's no pressure for cubs to pull trigger on trade that big. Has nothing to do with Hahn getting over trading with the cubs. I agree that market conditions might drive a better deal for the White Sox, but Mercedes sell well even amidst competitors. A better market for pitching is not going to displace the type of value Q provides irregardless of a more liquid market.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 01:03 PM) I don't see how that's even a question honestly. At some point you have to realize that you're just spiting yourself to hold out for "value." Unfortunately Q's value isn't what the White Sox say it is, it's what other teams are willing to pay. So if his market isn't up to your par now after the season Q just had and the 4 years of control, why on earth would it be better down the line? There's honestly no logical argument to keeping Q on this team past the 2017 deadline. And even waiting until the deadline is a mistake in my opinion, but I can at least somewhat see Hahn holding out for as long as he can if the offers truly aren't up to snuff. I think something will definitely break at some point in the next month though, Q is too good for every team to pass on trading for. Someone will step up for him. Well, I've mentioned this previously...it seems to me like trading assets in MLB is not nearly as exact as trading other commodities. It's not like gold, or a car, or even the NFL draft picks, where there is a level of precision or defined value. I'm not sure there is a huge difference between what you might get for Q today versus a year from today.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 12:24 PM) Yes, that's what Hahn is dealing with, you're right. But that's NOT the question that occurred in the chat, which drew the car metaphor. The chatter was saying that Quintana would be an effective mid to back end-rotation starter on a reasonable deal when they were likely to be good again, so they shouldn't trade him. Well, to be fair, that is not what the poster here asked. The question the poster here asked is might it be worth it to hold onto Q for as long as two more years and either move him then or still allow him to be your top of the rotation starter in 2019? With responded with an answer to a slightly different question, although I thought the metaphor was a pretty good one. I think the only real distinction between Cameron's answer to the other question and the answer to the question our poster asked is the additional tweak I provided.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) The point is that there's opportunity cost. In addition to his salary, that Sox would be "paying" the rights to a bunch of prospects in order to keep and use Quintana. In the case of the car, the student would be "paying" the difference in its current value and what it would be worth when he needed it. He "loses" the amount of depreciation. Let's say I bought the car before I decided to return to college, back when I actually had a decent-paying job. Now I know I should sell the car, but what if the offers I'm receiving aren't fair value? Yes, I know the car is depreciating the longer I keep it, but where is that balance between obtaining full market value and holding on to a depreciating asset that I have no need for? That's the question.