Buehrlesque

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 09:33 AM) Exactly. If Hahn is still insisting on Austin Meadows, then there is no deal with Pittsburgh. The next 7 seasons of Meadows could be more valuable to them than the next 4 years of Quintana. Some Sox fans are failing to understand that. The Pirates aren't trading Meadows. They will trade McCutchen at midseason and plug in Meadows. This is how that team is forced to operate. Quintana doesn't push them past the Cubs. Pirates are probably willing to trade Glasnow, Keller, Newman possibly. Hahn insisting on Meadows is probably why a deal isn't done and not getting done in the future either. While this may be their mindset, it doesn't justify their decision. A top of the rotation starter on a cheap deal for four years is much more rare and valuable than an OF, especially when you already have two other stud cheap OFs signed long-term. If they trade Meadows, they could find another number of options to fill their third OF spot. They simply cannot find a single option to replace what Quintana would bring them. (Similar thing could be said for the Astros and Bregman.)

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 12:17 AM) No. Pittsburgh HAS to part with Meadows. We need another blue chip position player in this deal. I'm not sold on Bell, and neither are the fangraphs guys. They think he won't hit for power, and he's a DH basically. Meadows/Keller or Glasnow, based on who the Sox like better/Hayes/Lotto ticket is what it would take from PIT for me to make a deal. However it starts with Meadows and either Keller or Glasnow. No Meadows no deal with Pirates. None of those guys has the upside of Moncada and Kopech in my opinion. Yeah, I think you're right. Glasnow, Keller and Bell is technically a fair deal, but it's not what this team needs. I think it's Meadows or bust.

Some of you people are WAY too high on Maitan. I get that he had the Miggy comp dropped on him, but as a 17-year-old who's never played in a single game here in the States, he is incredibly risky. Far too risky, IMO, to stake such a significant trade on. Yes, he has a high ceiling, but that can't be the only part of a prospect analysis, and no one can say much of anything tangible about the guy with any credibility or certainty right now. I'm not saying he won't be good, just that the Sox should go in a different direction with a trade.

QUOTE (beautox @ Mar 22, 2017 -> 08:56 PM) Quintana & Jennings for Martes/Tucker/Reed/Laureano/Stubbs I really like this, except to make it a little more palatable for the Astros, sub Martes out for a lower level arm (Perez or Whitley).

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Mar 22, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) Then no soup for you. Martes and Tucker are musts. Then two of Fischer, Reed, Perez, Whitley and Stubbs. I would personally be OK with no Martes, but I'd want something like Tucker, Fischer, Reed, Stubbs and Perez in that case. That's in the ballpark for me. Maybe sub Laureano for Fischer. I doubt the Astros would do a 5-for-1 though.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Mar 22, 2017 -> 02:45 PM) Martes and Tucker and after that I would love: One of: Franklin Perez Ramon Laureano Garrett Stubbs One of: Daz Cameron Jason Martin Miguelangel Sierra I say dump the overrated and costly (prospect currency wise) Martes and go with Tucker, Reed, Perez and Laureano. Overall I'd still rather work with the Yankees or Pirates though.

QUOTE (rcpweiner @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 03:46 PM) Just spitballing here: If we're to use Fangraphs' ballparking of Quintana's surplus value ($80 to $90 million), and then compare that to today's "Valuing the 2017 Top Prospects" list, then what seems to make sense would be something along the lines of: Clint Frazier ($38M), Blake Rutherford ($38M), and Justus Sheffield ($14M). Maybe another lottery ticket to boot. Something like that seems right to me. (Meanwhile, my personal favorite move would be to find a way to pry Austin Meadows ($70M) and Glasnow ($22M) from the Pirates, but it'd likely be just those two.) (Also: The other crazy thing is we somehow got $129M back plus Basabe / Diaz for Sale.) Meadows is still my personal favorite as well. (I don't care as much about Glasnow) And it makes so much sense for Pittsburgh, with their glut of OFs already! Oh well...

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Mar 9, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Notes untouchables. I personally am warming to Frazier and Rutherford as headliners. Frazier plus Rutherford does it for me.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 06:18 PM) It's pretty clear in the article that Devers off the table after the first 2 of Moncada and Kopech in place. That makes sense and I'm sure we asked and settled for Basabe w a lottery ticket throw in (victor diaz) I agree, and the Red Sox never needed to include Devers in their offer anyway. They already had the best deal on the table. It was clear the White Sox were going to sell Sale to the highest bidder (as opposed to just "holding out" forever for a perfect deal), so once the Red Sox edged out the Nationals in terms of value, there was never any incentive for them to go any further.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) My counter point is that raising Jones' value while removing the risk of Robertson's 2016 not being an aberration helps balance it out. Jones' value could remain super high in an Andrew Miller-type role.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) I'm completely OK with this. Like I said earlier, people wanted Robertson cut/salary dumped. To get a young, defensive catcher to add to Narvaez (who could have a solid backup career) and Collins would be great for Robertson. Plus it gets Jones in the closer role from the get-go, setting him up to bring in a deadline haul. I disagree. I'd be significantly disappointed in that return. Teams fall all over themselves to make silly trades for relievers in season. Missing out on a back up catcher is a risk I'm willing to take.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) The Sox aren't getting any more out of the Nationals, their fanbase is already got the torches and pitchforks out over the Eaton deal, which is probably what killed the Robertson deal a few weeks ago. Nats ownership is very sensitive to the fanbase's perspective that they are getting fleeced. If it was any other team, I think you could get more. If that's the case, I don't see why the Sox would try to work out a Robertson deal with the Nationals at all. At that point I'd just wait til midseason and find a different taker.

Robertson +$5 mil for Norris, Soto and Kieboom Not sure if the Nats would do it (probably not, considering their aversion to trading prospects now), but worth asking. They get Norris' salary entirely off the books, and get a discount on Robertson. In return, they have to give up two significant prospects.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 21, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/washing...osenthal-022117 The assumption now is that the Nationals’ surplus at catcher will lead to a trade for White Sox closer David Robertson. But ownership blocked a proposed deal for Robertson earlier this month, sources said, and the front office is not convinced he is the answer. Robertson, who turns 32 on April 9, is owed $12 million this season and $13 million next season, and ownership has shown a willingness to extend only for elite closers such as Kenley Jansen and Mark Melancon, both of whom the Nats bid on as free agents – and lost to the Dodgers and Giants, respectively. Might ownership reverse course? It’s possible, but the White Sox almost certainly would want Severino, 23, over Norris, 28, or Lobaton, 32. And the Nats are reluctant to trade additional young talent after parting with three top young pitchers to the White Sox for center fielder Adam Eaton. I'd rather have Norris than Severino, with the assumption that taking Norris' salary (and paying part of Robertson's) will net the Sox a better prospect (Soto?) than settling for Serverino.

QUOTE (pablo @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 10:14 PM) I find it interesting that Rogers mentions the Dodgers and Bellinger. We haven't heard any rumors regarding the Dodgers and Q as they seem intent on keeping their prospects and refraining from the big deals (Dozier). The fact he mentions the Dodgers suggests the teams are at least talking, right? Unless he's just pulling it out of his a**. If the Dodgers are legitimately interested, I'd be all for waiting until the deadline to see if their pitching staff has fallen apart by then like I suspect. At that point, they might be willing to include Bellinger. Rogers could well be pulling the Dodgers stuff out of his ass right now, but I was just thinking last night that they're one of the most likely teams to be in the running for Q come July. I know people are bummed the Sox couldn't get a Q trade done in the offseason, but I actually think they'll be better off in July when the Dodgers, Yankees and Cubs — big-time prospect-rich teams with a willingness to spend and win — all could be in the mix. My prediction is the Astros are going to be kicking themselves for not making a trade over the winter when they see what they'll be up against in July.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) Well you'd also have to subtract out Tanaka's $22 mill from the 2017 payroll (he's signed for longer, but has the opt-out which he would likely do if he pitches good and is healthy) so it would actually be less. So after this year if he opts out, its actually a $68 mill difference from what they are now to next off-season without Tanaka, A-Rod and CC. Edit: if that makes sense haha Ah yes, that does make sense. It will be interesting to see how they allocate their resources this season and next offseason, both cash resources and prospect resources.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) Maybe they end up dealing Tanaka if he is doing good for prospects at the deadline to have more depth for a Q trade? Based on their trades last season, it seems like they're into that. I don't think it's impossible for them to have interest, I just don't see it until around mid-season. Step 1: Trade Tanaka for prospects Step 2: Trade prospects for Quintana Step 3: Sign a starter in free agency in the off-season I could see this. With regard to ARod and CC, they may free up $46 mil, but Tanaka plus Arrieta/Cueto would probably cost more than $50 mil/year combined, thus increasing payroll overall.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) They want to be good at some point in those 5 years and they also didn't have to give up top talent to bring him in. I bet they go all in next off-season. Like I said, this season is hitting the reset button. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Because a guy like Chapman may not be available in next year's free agent class. Cueto and Arrieta are the big names net offseason, and they will cost a crap ton. Plus the Yankees will have to deal with resigning Tanaka. If they're concerned with the luxury tax, I would think it would be easier for the Yankees to bring in a modestly-priced Quintana than try to make the numbers work for Tanaka and one of Cueto/Arrieta.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:50 AM) I'm not suggesting compromise won't eventually happen, but if his ask was Musgrove + Martes + Tucker the Sox are not going to take Martes + Tucker + depth as a package Do we have to taken Martes in an Astros package as a given? I say, why waste all your capital (so to speak) on another SP (and one who's not as good as Giolito or Kopech at that). Let the Astros keep Musgrove and Martes, who can nominally contribute to their big league team today. If the Sox deal with the Astros (not my preferred choice anyway), I'd rather see Q for Tucker + Reed + Laureano + one of Paulino/Whitley/Perez.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:36 AM) Because they're not trying to win right now. They would have added more significant pieces by this point in the off-season. They're basically hitting the reset button for a year letting bad contracts expire. The only way their interest and willingness could change is if they're playing over their heads in the division or wild card race around mid-season/trade deadline. Then why did they sign a closer to an $86 million contract (with an opt out after three years, when they would theoretically be competitive)? I don't get that. I think the Yankees would be fine with trading Frazier + Rutherford for Quintana, but it won't happen until June/July.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 10:59 AM) The Cubs aren't trading for Quintana, at least not at this point in time. IMO, this thing comes down to three teams: Houston, Pittsburgh, & Atlanta. If Martes is really off limits, then I don't consider the Astros serious players. I believe the Braves are actually interested in Q, but I'm guessing any deal would need to be on their terms. That leaves the Pirates and I think they're the one team that might blink as we approach spring training. The team has a lot of talent, but desperately needs to add a TOR starter if they want even a solid chance of competing for a wild card spot. Quintana's contract is a perfect match for them and allows them to pivot in a year or two if things don't work out as well as they hope. A deal just makes too much sense for them and ultimately I think they cave. If Meadows & Bell are truly untouchables, then I could see a middle ground being Glasnow, Keller, Newman, & Craig. Hahn stated very clearly at SoxFest that it was too early to focus on specific needs when trading our assets and I think the package above would be way too much talent to pass up on. I don't think any teams are all that serious right now. The Pirates and Astros are offering "rental" type offers for Quintana. With four years' control, it's simply not acceptable to have so many off limits prospects. I doubt the "win now" mentality of the Pirates. If they were truly in win now mode, trade Bell and sign, as an example, old buddy Pedro Alvarez to play 1B for a year. Or trade Meadows and run with your three above-average major league OFs already on the roster. The Astros as hesitant to part with Francis Martes... a guy who ranks worse than Glasnow, who himself is not considered a slam dunk headliner. I'm sorry, but no. I don't think the Cubs, Rockies, Dodgers or Yankees are interested in making a deal now, but they have the goods to make it happen in July, since the Pirates and Astros are, IMO, considerably short on value.

Hypothetical trade proposal: Quintana and Reynaldo Lopez to the Cubs for Kyle Schwarber, Eloy Jiminez, Jeimer Candelario, lower-level 4th piece The Cubs have hitting to spare but are looking to shore up their pitching staff and depth. With the Sox, it's obviously the reverse. Schwarber is blocked by defensive limitations; Candelario is blocked by established all stars. Jiminez is one of the top OF prospects in the game. Would you do it?

I understand somewhat the logic behind the "collection of assets" thinking, but people are taking it too far. Balance is necessary.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 08:04 AM) Dont know if this got lost in the discussion but that Rumbunter guy tweeted that Hahn turned down a "hefty" deal from the Pirates. Hinted its Glasnow, Keller, Newman, and Diaz. No Meadows, no Bell, no deal. Pretty simple.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:08 PM) Ehhh. Robertson, maybe. I don't like a Q/Jones for Dahl/Rodgers deal. For just Q, I could maybe do just the two. Yeah, the Rockies would have to include more for Jones. But they have the depth and interesting names to do it.