Eminor3rd

If the Sox are playing better than expected, it should mean that more of those star performers will be moved at the deadline. Don't underestimate how brutal September can be from a W-L perspective.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:59 PM) It's not a Soxtalk thing, it's a sports fan thing. Probably true.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:51 PM) Dave Cameron also stated that Quintana would be a minor inprovement to the Astros rotation. No, he didn't. He said that, relative to cost (specifically referencing the glut of FA corner OF bats that was sitill available at the time), the Astros may benefit more from a high-end corner outfielder than they would a high-end SP, especially since he was able to dig up some peripherals that made a McHugh bounceback look promising. This site LOVES to hate writers.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 12:25 PM) The Sox prospects have sucked, but Law was dead wrong about Sale in more ways than one, and it wasn't that he was just a reliever. I'm not trying to say that Law isn't wrong about stuff, just that there is no systemic bias against the White Sox.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:17 AM) Law doesn't think favorably of any White Sox prospect. That's not true at all. We have had a garbage system for years, during which we, as fans, have had to hype ourselves up about BS prospects. It's disappointing when pundits take the wind out of our sails by calling mediocre prospects mediocre, but look back over the past 5 years or so and make me a list of guys Keith Law hated but turned out to be really good. AFAIK, that list is basically Chris Sale, and only because he thought Sale was destined for the bullpen, which was a commonly held ad completely justifiable belief at the time.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 04:34 PM) He is due $15M. That's the problem. He'll be much easier to move next summer. And he gives a ton of his offensive value back on defense. OF defense appears to be valued highly this offseason.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 07:09 PM) I am not challenging the laws of supply and demand. I am, however, challenging your qualification of the return as "far less." The supply of SPs who provide the type of surplus value that Quintana does will simply never be significantly more than it is now. Instead of 1-2, maybe there will be 2-3? That will not have a significant impact on demand. I suppose the return could be SLIGHTLY less, however it won't be significantly less. That's possible. We definitely don't know. We are all probably overreacting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 05:18 PM) Don't forget there may also be some value in winning the 2017 world series. Again, they need a 5th starter. They're still the best team in baseball. Next year they'll need a 3rd starter, and it'll make sense to pony up then. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 05:26 PM) First of all, part of the reason that the market is thin is because a lot of SPs are under contract with other teams. That lessens demand. I just want to make that clear. Yes, as a general rule -- except it turns out we have four serious suitors anyway. We are not suffering from a lack of demand. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 05:26 PM) Secondly, I challenge the notion that Quintana would bring back "far less" in a flooded market. Nonsense. Ok, challenge it. But you'll need to provide evidence against the universal economic adage that "price sits where supply meets demand."

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) Salary difference there is substantial. QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 02:39 PM) Exactly. His contract is so inexpensive compared to what high end free agents would command. Quintana would certainly be looking at a 100 plus million contract Even if you operate under the assumption that the Cubs are cost-conscious enough to avoid a market in which abundant supply is likely to bring costs down, they'll still be able to give up far less for Quintana in a flooded market and they won't simply be upgrading their 5 slot.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 12:54 PM) Arietta is in the last year of his contract, Lackey is 36, Lester is not young. You could make a case that Quintana is a fit for the Cubs. Why buy him at peak price a year before you really need him? They could get him next year when Arietta is gone and give up less. Or they could sign one of the millions of high-end free agents.

The Cubs are a bad fit. Do they need a starter? Yes. Would Quintana make them better? Of course. Does it make sense for the reigning WS champions and easy WS favorites to give up several elite prospects to upgrade their 5th starter? No, it does not.

.000/.000/.000

QUOTE (JRL @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 10:52 PM) Speaking in broad generalizations like this is useless. It's certainly possible the market won't get any better for Quintana. There are ample reasons why that could occur. It's equally possible that it does get better. Based on the info we have, we don't know whether to read it one way or the other. Painting it unless it's a complete "BS offer" he should be traded is meaningless. These things work on a continuum of current offers vs potential future offers and the probability in the trading team's estimation that those future offers are likely to come about; not in 2 neat categories of "BS offers" and "non-BS offers" I'll be the first to say Kenny hasn't been the best baseball ops guy/GM, but he and Hahn are not a bunch of imbeciles who just happened to stumble upon a baseball team and have no clue how to read these situations. They may be making the wrong decision, but it's clear that they don't believe that they are foregoing better offers by having not traded him yet. Otherwise, they would have already traded him. To say that the best market for him is unequivocally right now just simply ignores a lot of possibilities, that are equally likely based on the lack of info we truly have about the situation, and possibilities those people running the Sox clearly currently consider as having a pretty strong likelihood with the much better info on the situation that they have at their disposal. I would argue it's equally useless to expect the season is going to play out exactly as you (or any of us) expect it to play out -- where all the contenders are contenders and all the builders suck, there aren't any breakout players, unexpected bouncebacks, unexpected declines, unexpected injuries, or unexpected weird GM decisions -- thus creating a deadline where there "aren't any pitchers going to be available." Of course things are going to change, but we can't know which things and how much. I'm not sure where you got the notion that I'm trying to put offers in black/white categories. I'm pretty well known for constantly suggesting that things are NOT black/white, in fact. I agree with you wholeheartedly that eventualities must be qualified and valued in terms of probabilities, which is exactly why Hahn must view the current situation as the likely best trade market for him. He can't know everything, so he must lean on what he CAN know, and allow the randomness to be randomness. The correct way to treat a situation where you definitively know SOME things and definitively DON'T know other things is to make a plan based on what you can control and temper it with your best guess as to the probabilities of the unknown factors. Then you have to accept that things can go wrong anyway and form a contingency. I think you agree with this. The fact that you can't know everything is no reason to throw up your hands and say "well things could get worse OR better so it doesn't matter." That's not planning, that's gambling. It is NOT AT ALL equally likely the market will get better, because there are vastly fewer ways that it can get better than the alternative. Basically, those things are (1) Quintana has a Cy Young caliber season, (2) more than four contenders find themselves with a substantial need for pitching. The ways it can get worse are myriad and more likely, in some cases virtually guaranteed. Some examples: (1) Quintana gets hurt, (2) Quintana gets worse, (3) Quintana has less control remaining, (4) fewer suitors in the picture, (5) suitors with lower quality prospects in the picture, (6) the presence of literally any comparable SP alternatives at all on the market, (7) the almost certainly greater presence of other types of upgrades on the market. Again, I'm not saying that there definitely will not be a better or similar opportunity to extract value from Quintana in the future. But based on everything we can predict with a high level of certainty, those chances are very low. EDIT: And yes, QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:51 AM) post more.

There isn't going to be be a better market for Quintana. You can't get better than being literally the only TOR pitcher available. The market may be scarce again someday, but Quintana will have less control then, and he can't realistically pitch better than he has been pitching. It's certainly possible for someone to pay more later, but it's not likely. That doesn't mean take a BS offer, but there is definitely real motivation to get the deal done this offseason if at all possible.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 07:25 AM) Is this more of a compliment for Moncada or a warning about Collins? It's both, I guess, depending on the context. Maybe just an observation that Moncada is simply in a totally different class than anyone we have been used to evaluating in the FS era. Different precedent. I guess it also means that putting Collins on the "slow track" may be just as good for his bat as it is for his glove, especially if Moncada (as a point of comparison) isn't necessarily MLB ready.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) I would love to get an offensive monster type production out of second base as long as he can be at least average defensively. You move him to 3rd or center it drops his offensive value down a notch in my book. I am firmly on the "Moncada to CF" train. If we're doing clubs, I'll be the leader. Reasoning: 1. 2B is trending toward an offense-first position. I've read that this is because as teams all get better a shifting, 2B is becoming much easier to play. 2. The word on Moncada appears to be something like elite speed, plus arm, below-average hands, poor footwork. That sounds a lot like Billy Hamilton with a better arm (and probably a little less speed), and seeing how becoming a CFer literally turned him from a fringey bench piece into a solid starter. 3. The bat plays anywhere; I'll take it from a potentially elite CF instead of a hopefully passable 2B all day, every day.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 03:46 PM) I believe framing is a real stat unlike some, but I do wonder if it gets to a point where an umpire will see a catcher always posting good framing numbers, and start to use it against him. They are human. I am sure they see these lists. If Tyler Flowers always gets balls called strikes, couldn't it eventually lead to an umpire calling what he considers borderline pitches thrown to him balls because they figured his framing has given them an illusion? This is probably true, but I think that bad receivers will be able to turn borderline strikes into balls LONG after good receivers have lost the ability to turn balls into strikes. I wouldn't look at the Collins exercise as "framing practice" as much as I'd look at it as "quiet hands" practice.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 04:55 PM) Scott Merkin ‏@scottmerkin 22m22 minutes ago Todd Steverson on Zack Collins: "That looks like a nice No. 1 pick for us," Somewhat related: I was coincidentally watching video today on several of our prospects (YouTube has some cool stuff on many of our guys), and I was absolutely awe-struck how many zillion times better Moncada looked than Collins while hitting.

QUOTE (Username @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 08:36 PM) I've already touched on this but I really think the Braves might be posturing for a big starter trade. 1) Most obvious: recent rumors for them on Q and Archer. 2) They attempted to get Brandon Phillips and then signed Sean Rodriguez. Would seem to indicate Albies is expendable, which a lot of Braves fans have been speculating. 3) They extended Inciarte, potentially making Acuna long-term expendable (I now he's far away). 4) The trade today . . . trading a useful OF and bullpen piece for more young lefties, which is exactly what they already have ton of. After rejecting that massive offer for Archer (from the Astros) and then trading Smyly, I think it's totally possible the Rays hold onto Archer this year. This has already been somewhat touched on but Albies + Acuna + two of their young high-upside lefties makes a ton of sense. And I think there's been way too much smoke on them to think they aren't serious. I agree that it definitely SEEMS like it, I just can't get past the idea that it makes so little sense for them to do it. It's easy to see why it makes sense for many teams to get involved in a guy like Quintana when he's available (because it's so rare that that's the case), but if Hahn's price is really the FULL market price, given favorable selling conditions, it behooves a team like the Braves to pass. They really aren't that different from the Yankees in that regard -- both teams are seen to be "getting younger," but while both may be moving into the stage where MLB talent is worth buying, neither has moved past the stage where they shouldn't only be making deals where they feel like they came out ahead in one way or another. The types of deals we're all expecting Hahn is asking for are "you know you're paying top dollar but this is the final piece you need and flags fly forever" types of deals. The Pirates and the Astros could both be in situations where they see a contention opportunity that may not last more than a season or two, but the Yankees and Braves are still very much looking up at behemoths in their divisions, and should not be interested in paying top dollar for upgrades.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 05:21 PM) Yea, that's what I thought. I'm just getting frustrated with no trades getting done. Yeah, we all are, I think.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 05:05 PM) Meadows remains the key to a deal with the Pirates. I think Bell is too risky, His defense is awful, he may not have enough power or hitting prowess to be a full time DH. OK, I understand this may be heresy for some hoping for a 3-5 year rebuild, but if this rebuild plan fizzles and the Sox can't trade Q, Frazier, Abreu, and Melky for what they believe they are worth, what if the Sox decide to reverse the wheels from a total tank style rebuild? Can the Sox compete for the Division, assuming they add a legit major league outfielder or two with Malky and Charlie Tilson in Left and Center? Narvaez, Soto catching, and infield of Frazier, Tim Anderson, Moncada and Abreu ? Rotation anchored by Quintana and Rodon? Players can always be traded. It is not that easy to assemble a 25 man roster that is competitive and no guarantee that blowing it up gets that done any time soon. Maybe I'm just getting too nervous about this rebuilding plan and worried it won't work. I would think you'd be way MORE nervous about a contention plan that is centered on last year's White Sox minus Adam Eaton and Chris Sale.

Honestly, any deal with Meadows + either Keller/Newman makes me extremely happy. I literally don't even care what the others are. It could be Meadows/Keller + two members of the grounds crew.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 03:49 PM) When do you realistically expect him to be a productive member of our team? How many years of control will we have left with the rest of our core by that point? With a rebuild you want a core of players all hitting the majors in a short period of time. That's how you optimize your window of contention. I don't think this is true. What teams want is a consistently productive farm that gives them options in any given year. That means talent at all levels. Remember that lo level talent often contributes to a contender by being traded at the right time.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 01:48 AM) Re: Willy. Is our outfield the worst in baseball history? Just asking. Our infield could be one of the most productive offensively in team history. Abreu, Moncada, Anderson, Frazier. Are we even going to try to put anybody in the outfield who is MLB caliber? And catcher is disgracefully bad. Might as well put Saladino out there in center just to let him have 500 at bats. I still say if we kept Q we potentially have a playoff rotation and with Robertson and Nate, on paper, we have a playoff bullpen. We're just horrid in OF, catcher and DH. Are the Sox still gonna trade everybody?? The way it stands today, this rebuild is barely off the ground. We're closer to contending (at this time) than rebuilding. Now trade Q and Nate and Robertson and Frazier and Melky that's a different story. p.s. Why not trade a prospect or two for Alex Gordon and sign Cespedes? Wouldn't we be favored in the Central? lol wat #potentialplayoffrotation 1. Jose Quintana 2. Carlos Rodon 3. JAMES SHIELDS 4. Miguel Gonzalez 5. Derek Holland?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 12:21 PM) I think a return of Glasnow, Keller, Newman, and Diaz is not something that you would want to shut the door on. I suspect that is something that Pirates are not yet comfortable with, actually. Agreed.