iamshack

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:36 PM) <!--quoteo(post=3461134:date=Dec 12, 2016 -> 06:25 PM:name=iamshack)-->QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 06:25 PM) <!--quotec-->The headliner still equates to the majority of the value in the deal. I'm not trying to be argumentative...but stop and think what Q's value has been for the last 4 seasons. Now tell me what are the chances Torres ends up giving me that kind of value, projecting him as a 19 year old? MAYBE 25-30%? C'mon. A little closer to 50%. We're talking about some of the most talented 19 year olds in the world here. Torres just won the AFL MVP at age 19, which is nearly unheard of. Obviously there's going to be a lot of projection involved with these type of players but you can argue the payoff could be infinite. I agree in principle with what you're saying based on Q's contract/control/the current market. But we got 2 Torres/Tucker type talents and 2 other raw guys for Sale. There is 0 chance we're going to get 4 of those type of talents for the unheralded/off-brand Jose Quintana comparatively. No arguing, just friendly debates . We agree to disagree Is Moncada really not any better than Tucker or Torres, in terms of prospects?

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) Comparing the price the Cubs paid, when they were arguably a good closer away from their first WS in 100 years and had plenty of near-MLB and MLB players in the positions Torres would play, to this situation probably won't make you happy about anything that could plausibly happen. Same goes for the Shelby Miller trade. If the GM is drunk when he makes the deal, great, but you can't bank on that stuff happening. That is the price you can request when you don't have any necessity to move the guy right now though. Then wait for the situation you described above to recreate itself again as the season goes on.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) I said "as the headliner". Never said straight up. The headliner still equates to the majority of the value in the deal. I'm not trying to be argumentative...but stop and think what Q's value has been for the last 4 seasons. Now tell me what are the chances Torres ends up giving me that kind of value, projecting him as a 19 year old? MAYBE 25-30%?

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 04:17 PM) The almighty Gleyber Torres put up a .270/.354/.421/.775 line in high A this year at age 19. You wouldn't take Gleyber Torres as a headliner for Q? Tucker put up a .285/.360/.438/.798 between A and high A in 2016 at age 19. No, I would want 3 or 4 guys like Torres for Q. The Cubs traded him for half a season of Chapman, not four seasons of an outstanding SP.

QUOTE (Tony @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) @pgammo GM respected for scouting and highly asture in analytics today said, "I think Adam Eaton is one of the 15 best players in the game." I don't agree, but still interesting. Mike Rizzo doesn't count.

I admittedly am still learning the differences between evaluating prospect talent and mlb regulars. That being said, at some point, potential, particularly with the attrition rate we're seeing for prospects, is not such a holy grail that I am moving my near-elite, rock solid, easy as it gets motion SP for the opportunity of HOPING that Kyle Tucker turns into a player as valuable as the one I am relinquishing. I'm sorry, but 19 year old kids that aren't already dominating a league wherein they are one of the younger players simply cannot be untouchable for a proven player with the value of Jose Quintana. This is just getting out of hand.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:22 PM) Well you kind of hit on it already, but Moncada will almost assuredly be arriving by Opening Day 2018, so 2b will be covered. As for 3rd it wasn't until this year the Sox really found someone who wasn't a trainwreck. Saladino is a good enough defender to hold down the fort another season if need be as well. Andy McCullough ‏@McCulloughTimes Adam Katz, Jansen's agent, confirms the Nationals offered Kenley Jansen more money. He wanted to stay in L.A. If the Nationals were willing to give Jansen $80m+ they are truly desperate. I dont know how exploitable they are with Robertson but that's an encouraging report. Or it may not be. It may show their desperation to avoid moving any more key prospects after the Eaton trade.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) I don't think we should get much less when we trade Q then we did Sale. We got the #1 prospect in baseball (or close to it) in Moncada plus a guy who is trending upwards (and already is very highly ranked) and two other good prospects with upside to be top 100 type guys. We are getting nowhere near the quality and to be frank, aren't really getting much more "quality" either. I see it a step down from what I thought was a relatively "fair" trade by the each colored Sox. I actually am on record as saying I wish we were able to get one more guy for Sale, but that didn't happen. I think the difference in "stuff / perception" between Q & Sale should largely be made up for by the extra "control" that comes with Q. I am also a proponent of moving him now vs. later, given that we are obviously on a path to rebuild and don't see Q being a long term cog in that wheel...so the risk you have keeping him (either injuries or just regression) outweighs any incremental value generated by holding him longer (imo). I agree. I can come around on Tucker, but again, as the centerpiece, I don't like the guy having 16 games in high-A ball, at least not without 2 or 3 of their top level prospects. Now to be fair, both Moncada and Giolito may fall off a tad because of their relatively unimpressive mlb cups of coffee, and I get it that Tucker is on the upswing, but a trade of Q should include someone with a bit more success at higher levels than Tucker. I get the Martes/Tucker/Musgrove or even Reed ask, but even then, this package doesn't seem to have the same type of impact overall that the Boston/Nats packages had. I don't want to fall into the practice of just requesting some top guys irregardless of the relative talent of those prospects juxtaposed against other teams top prospects. It seems as though if we did a deal with Houston, it might need to be Martes/Tucker ++++ some depth pieces unless they become willing to toss in those mlb ready pieces.

Awesome job, as usual, Brian!

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 09:01 PM) I agree I think it gives all the arm chair GMs (myself included) and the media a basic foundation and like I said rankings in general are more art than science. Kopech is a great example BA midseason had in in the 90s but his late season and afl performance moved the needle a ton, while mlb had him ranked in the 30s. Additionally it often takes 4-6 years to see who "won or lost" a deal. One of the articles I read mentioned that Dombrowski had his team put together a comparison of Moncada and Kopech's value compared to Sale's, and that their value over 6 years eclipsed Sale's over 3 years. Not significantly enough to deter further conversation, however. The most intriguing part of that to me is not the ability to determine surplus value to that level of precision, but more so the projections on the field that lead to those surpluses for prospects. Those projections make me feel better about Moncada and Kopech as returns.

QUOTE (Soxcessful @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 04:13 PM) Outside of Melkiy I don't see Hahn trading for prospects with a projection later than 2018,especially not for Quintana who he has thru 2020. Both trades to date have early projectables outside of basabe and Diaz. The pressure is on the buyers who want to win now but there is subtle pressure on Hahn to win soon and a 2020 projectables like pint Rodgers etc won't guarantee Rick a job after three losing years Yeah, but you start out to run out of teams that are willing and able to give up that kind of bounty. At some point, you may have to sacrifice for guys with a little later ETA in order to get the kind of impact that you're looking for. Besides, I do like the diversity of different ETAs as well. Not everyone needs to be ready in the next year or two.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 03:37 PM) Personally, Pint just to get the deal done. He's super talented himself, just further away and without a TJS to boot. Rockies are clearly trying to win now. We may run into a similar wall like the Musgrove from the Astros ask. I think in any of these deals, the more MLB ready guys you try to take from teams trying to win now, ultimately the less you'll get back in terms of quality or quantity on the back end of these deals. They're also less likely to pull the trigger too. Feels that way to me, anyway. We can take Pint anyways, with some of the other close arms we now have. I don't feel like having someone who might be a force in 4-5 years is necessarily a bad thing.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 02:07 PM) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-24-pros...lorado-rockies/ Fangraphs review of Rockies' prospects. They are pretty down on McMahon. Reading those reviews are a buzzkill

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) Tapia has no power, but hits for average and has speed. Good leadoff type guy Yeah, I would be more intrigued if he could play center. Sounds like most think he ends up in right.

I, for one, don't particularly love Tapia. I would much prefer McMahon or even Wall over Tapia. The package I really want from the Rockies is probably Rodgers/McMahon/Wall/intriguing arm.

QUOTE (Tony @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) Honestly, with what Hahn has said publicly, and some info we've gotten from sources, I'll be very surprised if Q isn't moved this offseason. Well, let's say both Houston and Colorado (and others) refuse to move off of where they're currently at for the remainder of the offseason...I don't think Hahn will change his asking price just to move Q ahead of the start of the season.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 01:15 PM) And risk Q getting hurt or falling off in those next 2 years. I want to move him now, but I don't lose too much sleep over this with Q.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 12:52 PM) Pint is way too far from the majors and too risky to centerpiece a Quintana deal. I could see a rodgers, tapia plus one more package making sense though I just think the Q deal would get done fairly quickly if the Rox were open on moving Rodgers and Hoffman or Pint and another solid piece or the Astros were willing to move Martes and Tucker plus. I think both teams read the blowback on the first two moves, particularly the Eaton deal, and think they are right to offer two elite prospects. The great thing is Hahn has absolutely no need to move Quintana until one of them caves. As much as it sucks for fans, I think Q will bring that sort of return in July more easily than it does right now.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) I know people like outside media: http://www.purplerow.com/2016/12/11/139088...icago-white-sox Pretty reasonable!! Amazing to me was fans main objections were to trading pitchers (not Rodgers) And who could blame them with their history and stadium, but package 3 I find entirely reasonable. Go Rockies trade. I'm sure the reason this hasn't been done yet is because the White Sox are requiring at least Rodgers, one of Hoffman or Pint, and either Tapia or McMahon. Rockies are probably pushing a non-Rodgers package, and I bet it's more along the lines of Pint/Marquez/McMahon. I don't think Hahn will do it without Rodgers.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:20 PM) http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2...l?event=event12 I made a joke that it was unlikely the sox backed off divers and then just offered up basabe/diaz, but it looks like that's actually how it happened. Always funny to realize that the front offices have their own way to measure prospects, not looking at the BA top 100. So if Basabe and Diaz have a good year next year, let's remember our scouts. Makes you think we could have gotten a little more out of them...makes you wonder if the Red Sox would have ultimately caved on Devers or not.

He skipped their fan festival as a result of the Eaton trade, and so they said the hell with you.

A good analysis of the Chris Sale trade from Big Three Sports.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) I think Musgrove may be the problem. Lunhow specially mentioned a 2017 piece. You can make a good case he is their #3 starter right now, If he made the trade he improves his top 3, but has the same 4/5. Tucker he probably would have to swallow deep to trade, but I think ultimately he would do it if he was just giving up prospects. Could be...but I think that was just his bs excuse for not moving Bregman. If it is about 2017, I agree with someone else who said toss in Gonzalez for all we care.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 02:47 PM) Sox can't really do it without Martes and Tucker That's why it's not been done yet

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 10, 2016 -> 09:45 AM) I mean from Houston's standpoint - to get a pitcher like Q for that ask. Pull the trigger all day if you're Luhnow with how consistent Q is. As another poster said, I bet the hangup was the inclusion of Musgrove off their MLB roster. I can't see it being Musgrove. I think its either Tucker or Martes, or even both they don't want to move. Don't you think if this was about Musgrove they would have figured this out by now? If you're Luhnow, and Q goes to Colorado, for example, then you're stuck with either Verlander or Archer most likely, and the Rays can bend you over the barrel on Archer. They have to be aware of that and Joe Musgrove isn't worth risking putting yourself in that position over. This is about Tucker and/or Martes.