ChiSox59

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) If they get either Meadows or Torres without it being what amounts to a 1-for-1 swap I'll be happy. If the deal doesn't include one of those two I want three top 100 (consensus, not snuck in at 97 on one list) with at least one, preferably the best, being a position player and a 4th lower level player added. I'm not getting too hung up on specific names, if a deal feels right I'll like it. Glasnow, Keller and Newman are three top 50 names. Pretty sure you've said that feels light, but may be confusing you with a different poster, which is certainly possible at this point.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) My own feelings Those feel pretty light to me.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 08:26 AM) Glasnow, Newman, and Keller easily gives the Sox the #1 system in baseball. That's a lot. Good enough to move 4 years of Q? I don't know. Yah, I really like Glasnow and Keller. Only reason that trade doesn't excite me that much is because we really need bats. Add Hayes to it, it gets a little better. Still really want Meadows (as does everyone here).

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 04:14 PM) The lack of noise surrounding Melky is both surprising and disappointing. Well, he is set to make $15M in 2017. That'll scare off a lot of suitors. Melky makes much more sense as a guy you hold onto, hope he hits like crazy in a contract year, and move him in June or July to a team desperate for a bat. $7M is much more palatable than $15M.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) Its too quiet around Quintana right now. Especially after that little blip last night...I sense an awakening. Mind me asking what the blip last night was?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 03:45 PM) We already have this discussion in the FutureSox board. Can someone merge the threads? I think it is relevant enough to stay on the main board (but agree the convo should be merged). I personally (and I am sure many others) don't visit the Futuresox board much at all in the off season.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:46 PM) If all the sox wanted was a top 30 position player, top 70 pitching prospect and two bullpen arms the sox could get that deal. I think it is pretty obvious that that is not what they want.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:44 PM) It is about leverage. You had two teams trying to get to the WS and assets and a robust market starving for late inning arms which helped the Yankees extract large packages. This is why the Sox should not trade Q until they get everything they want, because at some point this summer a team is going to decide they are one SP away from making a WS run and the Sox can be well positioned to profit at that point. I am confident this is Hahn's thought exactly. He'll get what he wants, or he'll hold. I am confident in that. None of this accepting best offer BS that has been floated alot around here by the impatient.

QUOTE (Soha @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:46 PM) I don't think it's as much 'too much pitching' as it is 'not enough hitters' in the system. I'm also in the camp that if the Sox can't get a legit bluechip hitting prospect to headline a trade, then I'd rather hold on to Quintana for now. Pretty much where I stand too at this point.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:48 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?

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:21 AM) Am I the only one who really really does not want a package centered around Glasnow? Is obviously prefer Meadows, but Glasnow is legit and gives us 4 of the top 10 or so pitching prospects. Not a terrible place to be.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) Garcia has a higher ceiling than Coats - more impressive in raw power by a lot, some other athletic tools. But Coats has a higher floor - I think Coats is a typical 4OF right now (and yes he can play some CF, though I wouldn't start him there). For me, the ideal would have been to not carry Avisail and his price tag and overhead baggage, and instead keep Coats, Willy G and Liriano around to compete for RF and 40-man slots. Hopefully Coats passes through waivers. I'd like to see him get another chance next year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 04:25 PM) The Astros have Keuchel, McCullers, McHugh, Fiers, Morton with Musgrove and Paulino in the wings. It's not the most overpowering rotation, but it's not a bad rotation to enter a season. And Martes. They have options.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 01:12 PM) 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. I understand what he is saying. It depends on what they can get. To me, if the best offers are Martes, Paulino, Fischer, lottery ticket type package - the opportunity cost would be minimal. You can get that deal (not literally) a year from now. We need an elite headliner on the offensive side. If the Sox were interested In another pitcher headlined package, prettty sure we'd have Glasnow right now .

QUOTE (Blackout Friday @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 01:02 PM) I think he meant the cumulative cost of keeping him until 2020 to act as a 4th starter on a competitive team. Not his single season salary. Yah, I know. It's incredibly inaccurate.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 12:00 PM) Dave Cameron put this best, so I am going to blatantly copy and paste what he said and then link to the chat in question. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dave-camero...aphs-chat-1417/ Cameron's comment about Q being the most expensive #4 starter in history. What is he smoking? Terribly off base with that comment.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 11:54 AM) Here's an interesting question: assuming Q performs the same going forward, how much would his value decline if you tried to trade him after two more years versus today? Thinking is that we don't know how prospects & other trades & roster players will pan out, and it's possible the Sox are ready to contend in year 3. Thus meaning we'd still have two years of Q! So is it worth keeping him for two more years with the knowledge you'd have the optionality of having a TOR starter? If you're not a contender you could still trade him with 2 years left. We might not be getting Q's full value for his 4 years of control. Regarding your first question, I don't think his value drops much at all over the next two years assuming no injury and no significant drop off.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 04:44 PM) Scott merkin said astros high on tucker and wouldn't be in a deal. Then Bye Felicia.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 04:40 PM) For Rick Hahn to get Bregman you gotta offer Quintana and Frazier for bregman and more. Hence why I said Bregman probably isn't going anywhere. Maybe Q and Frazier gets you Bregman ++, but I think the Astros arent moving him. That's why Tucker has to be available, or Luhnow can f*** off.

One thing I am certain of is that the Astros aren't getting Q without Tucker or Bregman. I see litttle reason to believe Bregman is moving so Tucker has to be in a Q deal. If not, the Astros can piss right back off.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) D'oh, sorry. I wonder if we carry 5 outfielders Also wouldn't be surprised to see May or Engel at some point if Sox go full scorched earth tank job, which I doubt.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) so do we have a CFer (not that coats was)? Tilson. I think Liriano can play a little CF as well, but better suited for the corners. Leury Garcia?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 01:48 PM) If he is signed to a minor league deal he isn't subject to major league waivers unless he is called up. Thanks for confirming.

Seems kind of strange. I don't know much about Garcia and will read up, but on the surface, seems like I'd rather have Coats. Hope Coats clears, and then it'd be non-issue.

Can the Sox keep him in AAA without the risk of losing him on waivers? I believe so, just confirming.