FT35

I love that TB is stuck on Bregman in any Archer trade. It does 2 things...1. it makes our proposed deals for Q (the better overall pitcher imo) that don't have Bregman in them look more enticing, and 2. it makes things less uncomfortable when Bregman's name is brought up in Q discussions. Houston does have other options at 3rd...Gurriel and Gonzalez, but I would think even we would see that as marginal depth at best. I think the biggest hangup to Bregman is that they are counting on him solving a long-term organizational search for a third basemen--much like the Sox had until Frazier signed last year. We're talking an issue for Houston dating back to the Morgan Ensberg--and even Ken Caminiti days! Taking this logic--would it be inconceivable if Frazier was added to the mix if it enabled them to move a player like Bregman? I know Hahn is trying to maximize his return on each asset and has shown a reluctance to move multiple pieces (Robertson to Washington in the Eaton trade), but it just seems like adding Frazier in here would do exactly that by unlocking Bregman. If they were willing to do Bregman +Martes or Tucker + + for Quintana if it meant getting Frazier back as well, that's a good use of the Frazier chip and good for Houston too--especially if they were able to resign Frazier to cover even more of those "lost" Bregman years. Personally, I think Bregman should be in play without Frazier, but the Sox are actually in a position to FIX a primary stumbling block to Houston acquiring a TOR starter--the ensuing hold at 3rd.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 02:34 PM) True, but Carter can't play 3rd base with solid defense Maybe plug Saladino in at 3rd for his D and sign Carter to DH. You keep your production and shed 10 Million.

Player 1: 2016 Salary: 2.5 MIL R 2B HR RBI AVE 84 | 27 | 41 | 94 | .222 Player 2: 2017 Salary: 12 MIL R 2B HR RBI AVE 89 | 21 | 40 | 98 | .225 If given the choice between the 2, employing player 1 seems like smart baseball for the rebuilding team, yes? (Player 1: Chris Carter, Player 2: Todd Frazier)

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 02:55 PM) A's won't sell him discounted after an injury plagued year. His value is at its lowest. And to try to get a team from your own division to trade you a started, it should take more. Exactly...he's worth more to the A's if there's a discount of any kind involved! #moneyball.

Get over it Houston. Geoff Blum happened...he even works for you now. It's a thing of the past and it's time to move on.

Trying to come up with a decent MLB comp for Austin Meadows if he develops the way he should...curious to see what you all think. Solve: Austin Meadows >/= Adam Eaton? Austin Meadows >/= Grady Sizemore? Any other ideas?

Still think 3rd team needs to get involved to offset some of the costs of Q going to Pittsburgh. Yankees get: Glasnow and Robertson (or Frazier?) Pirates get: Quintana, + (low level NYY) Sox get: Torres, Meadows, + (mid level NYY) + (low level PIT)

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 10:12 PM) Saladino, Lawrie and Sanchez are all better options than Micah.Do you remember how much of a butcher Micah was at second? Beyond horrible, the stuff nightmares are made of. We're talking some seriously f***ing bad joojoo on Micah's glove and defensive footwork. The team that just DFA'd Micah is looking for a 2B. What does that tell ya? Tells me we could throw in Lawrie to get a deal done with them for Q! Dodgers have the system and the $ to take a leap for Q.

QUOTE (pablo @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) And just to add, as most here have said before, it probably comes down to if Huntington can trade Cutch in the next couple weeks. IF Cutch isn''t getting the deal the Pirates want right now, I can't imagine they'll get a good deal after this offseason. If they can't trade him, I'm thinking Meadows ends up being the headliner in the deal because there is literally no where to play him for the next two years and they should capitalize on the roster they currently have. All of this is probably factoring into why it takes a long time to work out a deal with a team like this (Pirates). So many projections need to be made and so many counter moves (not necessarily trading players) need to be made several years down the road to help offset some of the risk in making a move like this. They CAN'T be wrong about Q being the missing piece that will make them contend. If they are looking to get value from Q at some point, they are looking at a 2-year "Win now" window (to retain the value of controllability on Q's salary in the event the deal doesn't work out and they need to flip him). Even with Q, they are still at least a handful of games behind the Cubs--best case scenario, they are looking at a wild card spot. Anything can happen, but that's a BIG risk for them. Essentially mortgaging their future for a SHOT at a 1-game playoff where winning gives you a SHOT at a team like Washington on a path that will ultimately lead through the Cubs. Would you add Meadows into a deal that already likely has at least 1 MLB piece (Glasnow or Bell) to make sure you get that SHOT? They could totally decide to take that risk, but my gut says it will ultimately fall through with Pittsburgh for these types of reasons.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:47 AM) I think Q's contract makes him much more valuable to the small market teams that have a window of contention. In the instance of the Pirates, they can only hope that their prospects develop to give them as much value as Q will provide over the next 4 years. They are going to lose Cole, probably next winter, and Cutch will be out around the same time. If they want to take a shot that time is now and they need to capitalize by flipping some of those potential assets into assets that can help make a push now. By the time these prospects are going to be ready to contribute at a high level, the Pirates will have lost many of their key contributors to FA. The Pirates can wait for the next wave of prospects to develop to contend, but I am not sure their GM will be their to see it. Absolutely! There's no question a player of high value is more valuable to a smaller market team...however...the cost to acquire him is still the same--just in a different form. They can acquire him without the risk of a big contract--but in the end, they are gutting their farm system for him--and their farm system is somewhat of a smaller market team's currency. It's an exercise in logic--Q is a valuable asset, to acquire him will require you to ante up an adequate amount of resources. That price is high even when you're talking a teams' prospects because the only way the smaller market teams get high quality players is to develop them and that takes time. Gutting your system when you're a small market team says "we're this 1 particular player away from putting us over the top." I'm not sure Pittsburgh is there?? Track record--players with high value trade log: Sale--BOSTON (Deep Pocket resources--Prospects + $) Eaton--WASHINGTON (Deep Pocket resources--Prospects + $) Both those guys would be more valuable to smaller market teams because of their contracts--but look where they ended up in the end.

Still think that in the end, Q will go to a team where resources are unlimited--even if you're not hearing that team mentioned a lot now. Teams like the Pirates, Astros and Rockies are brought up a lot because they have the prospects to pull it off--but even when you get down to it...Q's price tag is enormous. To acquire him, you'll have to pay a huge price (even if that's in prospects rather than cash). For a smaller market team, prospects are the life blood--they make the world turn. Gutting a system of all the top talent to acquire 1 player is just as much of a risk to a smaller market team as it is for a large team to throw $200M at a FA. Can they do it, yes. Should they do it...maybe, but only if you're that 1 player away from serious World Series contention. Think about it...a smaller market team guts their system to get Q...now they are without the capital AND without the prospects to make other deals. Their asset becomes Q obviously, but a lot is riding on that acquisition to either deliver a World Series run or a similar haul of prospects after losing a year or 2 of control. Maybe I'm wrong, but in the end...I think you see teams like the Yankees or Dodgers emerge as true front runners because they have BOTH the prospects AND the financial resources to pull from or fall back on. Cashman's remarks about the price being too high was his way of confirming this reality in the minds of all the smaller market teams--hopefully sending the message to other teams "if it's too high for the Yankees, it's too high for a team like you--(PIT)." Cashman knows he has what it takes to pull it off because if this trade bombs, he'll go buy another farm system. I think same goes for Dodgers. To acquire an asset like Q is a deep pocket investment--thin on cash and or prospects will ultimately box you out of the mix. If a smaller market team ends up with the winning bid, I will be very surprised considering the amount of risk they are taking on from a resource perspective.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 12:24 PM) I don't expect Coats to be anything special. That said, I do find it annoying that his "shot" in the Majors was 58 plate appearances, and many on this board think that's enough to make a decision on him. Didn't Bregman begin his MLB career 0-34? And, my favorite example: Mike Trout's first 60 career PAs: .185/.250/.352 Jason Coats' first 58 career PAs: .200/.298/.340 When you have a world class prospect, you look at them differently than you do prospects who have never sniffed the top 100 in baseball. While the once in a lifetime Mike Piazza story does happen, I think our calibration might be off a little since we have had NO good prospects. With respect to Coats, up until we acquired REAL prospects, being on OUR top 10 list says very little about a player's potential success. Certainly wish him the best in his quest.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 03:01 PM) I get what you're trying to do, but you confused yourself when you used MLB rankings and called it BA Top 100 rankings, then compared the rankings to historic BA rankings. You have to take into account that prospects rank very differently across publications, depending how their staff evaluates prospect tools and performances. Take Chris Carter example. He was ranked #11 by Baseball Prospectus in 2010 and #30 (despite having a poor showing in 2010) in 2011, while only ranked #28 and 90 in those two years by BA. So if you want to use current MLB rankings, a fair comparison is historic MLB rankings, not Baseball America's. I follow now...yes, I used the MLB for the most recent, then BA for the archives. Point being the same though...it's to show the type of return that it could yield (player comp wise) in a 5 year period...a couple of studs, a couple of duds. Although 2012 MAY be an outliner...one could only dream of Harper, Trout, Pomeranz and Bogaerts. Personally, I would think 2013 may be the norm...Profar--an over-hyped under achieving player who in reality is probably still a decent UTIL guy, Rendon, Martinez and Gregorius form a nice trio of talent--throw in what could have been with Oscar Taveras--God forbid. It's certainly a nice start on a core.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 05:25 PM) So the OP did a benchmark of current MLB rankings against historic BA Top 100 rankings? It still doesn't make sense. Since we don't know how prospects will fare in the big leagues (or if they will ever make it up), this info shows what similarly ranked prospects have turned out to be as major league players. We don't know how Reynaldo Lopez will do over time...but we do know that Carlos Martinez was once ranked #38 on this list and he turned out to be a solid pitcher with the Cardinals. Not directly comparing Lopez to Carlos Martinez, but it's a idea of the type of player someone who is ranked #38 could turn into as a major leaguer. Obviously there are plenty of outliners, but looking at each sample list, there are at least a couple of really good names and a couple of duds. So if our 6 follows a similar pattern, we could have a similar result.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 05:08 PM) Most of the "wow" players of yore are position players and 4 out of 6 for Sox are pitchers, who notoriously have a higher bust rate. But hoping for the best. Something about Giolito screams Gavin Floyd to me but that would be serviceable I suppose. Gavin Floyd was exactly the name that came to mind! Interesting you mentioned that! I just think the list is interesting to see the caliber of players that come from various spots on the top 100 list. Some are busts, others are super stars. Doesn't mean we will have either! Just a historical reference for comparison purposes only. There's pretty much a big time star in every group--along with at least 1 bust.

Right now, we currently have 6 top 100 players on the Baseball America top 100 prospects list. *Using the main chart (not the one that released a few updates today). 2016 1. Yoan Moncada 3. Lucas Giolito 30. Michael Kopech 38. Reynaldo Lopez 58. Carson Fulmer 80. Zack Collins Here's a look at what those players would look like over the last 5 years (using the same Baseball America ranks) to give us an idea of what types of return they might produce as far as a team nucleus in the next 5 years--assuming they all stick together. 2015 1. Byron Buxton 3. Lucas Gioloto 30. Ozhaino, Albies 38. Tim Anderson 58. Grant Holmes 80. Johnathan Harris 2014 1. Byron Buxton 3. Oscar Taveras 30. Andrew Heaney 38. Travis D'Arnaud 58. Kolten Wong 80. Hunter Renfroe 2013 1. Jurikson Profar 3. Oscar Taveras 30. Anthony Rendon 38. Carlos Martinez 58. Austin Hedges 80. Didi Gregorius 2012* Holy #&%@ 1. Bryce Harper 3. Mike Trout 30. Drew Pomeranz 38. Gary Brown 58. Xander Bogaerts 80. Michael Choice 2011--wow 1. Bryce Harper 3. Jesus Montero 30. Gary Sanchez 38. Brett Jackson 58. Simon Castro (SD) 80. Nolan Arenado

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) I keep seeing this but don't agree with it. Why is it risky just for the Sox? Other teams' players' stocks will rise and fall as well. Just as an example, Tyler Glasnow is more likely to get injured or underperform than Quintana. Do you think the Sox could have nabbed Giolito (plus more) for Eaton at this point last year? TINSTAAPP I hope it gets done soon for convenience sake, but I don't there is added risk in waiting if offers aren't up to par anyway. Plus, teams in midseason pennant races can clearly seeing glaring needs manifest themselves right in front of them, and don't have the luxury of playing the long game of hardball with the trade deadline looming and playoffs tantalizingly close. I see your point though...everyone is involved with the risk factor. I think the most important factor was eluded--Q is at his ceiling. Everyone knows he is great--there's some debate whether he's a #1 for a playoff bound team, but they know the ceiling is where he is (plus a few more wins), and the floor is not very low. But the true risk comes in when you factor in the April factor. When you're dealing with up and coming players who have been highly touted, they have a long leash on failure but a short window to be acquired. Look at G. Sanchez for the Yanks...he started hot and went from "we'd rather not trade him, to "ABSOLUTELY NOT...NEVER!!!" because of that hot start. Any of those top 10 prospects are valued more by the team who has them--so it doesn't take much for a little success to be blown out of proportion--FAST. 2 good starts could close the door for a while on a player like Glasnow if he comes out of the gate with 2 gems. Bell could start 8 for 16 with 4 extra-base hits. The other April factor that the Sox deal with is the cold. While that tends to aid the pitchers numbers...it also can easily lead to the common muscle pull, strain--minor injury trip to the DL "for precautionary reasons" and all of a sudden your Quintana for Glasnow, Bell, Newman is a pipe dream. It took the Rangers a full year and a half before they considered Joey Gallo movable again because he blew up in the first week of his callup. The flip side may not be exactly the same because Q could start with 2 gems and the Pirates package could start cold and the deal is still hinging on whether the Pirates want to let go of that much potential to acquire Q--they know Q is great but his 2 gems did little to confirm that as they were almost expected.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 01:33 PM) Even throwing out the likelihood for the Sox to pick up all $15 million due being near zero, I still don't see a top 100 prospect being the return for Melky. That seems a touch high. See you never know...I think how teams view their prospects' rankings takes a back seat to how they plan on using them. There are a lot of top 100 ranked prospects who are blocked on the depth chart who are available to use as trade chips and the fact that they are ranked in the top 100 just makes for a quicker deal that gets you what you need (or gets you some extra bargaining power in some form). If I've got a rock solid rotation, a lights out bullpen and am strong around the infield and have only 1 sure thing in the outfield along to go with 2 below replacement OF'ers...I might have no problem moving an infield prospect who is blocked by an all-star under a long-term MLB deal for someone like Melky who can hit .300 and get on base. If that player is ranked NO. 87 on Baseball America's list, so be it. If that is the chip I need to play to really complete my team for a legitimate run, I might do it?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:14 AM) After the Sox trade Q and Robertson and Frazier or Melky, it's going to be really hard to be a White Sox fan. The team will absolutely suck, and next offseason there will be very little action. They will not have much to trade. They won't be signing big names. I've thought the same thing really...wondered if I'm going to watch as many games, wondered if I'm going to set aside as much time/money to come see them play in Chicago as I normally do. But I don't know how much of my fandom will actually change. White Sox baseball is still a large part of who I am...and rarely do the players and the team's success have much to do with it. It's like every day is a good day--but some are just better than others. But everyday is a good day...there's the team, the pinstripes, the black and white, the strategy, the human element, the green grass, the history, the memories. Watching a game still provides at least a couple hours a day where we can just watch baseball and admire the sights and sounds of summer. Those are good days to be alive. Some teams are better than others and like you say, some flat out suck. But there's still that 2 hour experience almost every day that re-calibrates you to some good times in the past--the hope for something great to happen and the possibility that anything could happen. All while soaking in the warm weather and watching the evening come in around a large group of people who have shared many of the exact moments you have. That's not easy to replicate.

Just for fun Lineup: C Sandy Alomar Jr. 1B Frank Thomas 2B Roberto Alomar SS Jimmy Rollins 3B Chris Sabo OF Michael Jordan OF Ken Griffy Jr OF Sammy Sosa DH Manny Ramirez Honorable Mention: Jose Canseco Bo Jackson Andruw Jones John Kruk Ruben Sierra

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) Bell is a 24 year old switch hitting 1B, who while he has demonstrated a mastering of defense at 1B is very athletic. power is always the last tool to develop and being a switch hitter that is even more pronounced. Not saying he is likely to hit these but Josh Bell’s Mahalanobis Comps are Todd Helton, Joey Votto, Ryan Klesko, Eric Karros, Travis Hafner, Dmitri Young & Carlos Pena. His discipline leaves a lot to dream on as well as being an athletic switch hitter and could become and above average defender at 1B. I think Glasnow's lack of showing a third pitch in the majors is a valid concern but all he has done is dominate. Newman even with his elite eye doesn't do anything for me thought. I agree with you though that there needs to be more than just Bell. Ideally its Meadows and Bell, Hayes and a lotto ticket. Very nice comps. Would love to see Diaz added because I am not sure our plan is 100% to use Collins as a Catcher. Who knows.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) Moncada and Meadows are very close, could really go either way on those two. Glasnow > Kopech. Again close but clear advantage for proximity to majors and LHP Hayes and Diaz>>>Basabe and Diaz. Catchers. IMO, I don't think Meadows is anywhere near Moncada. I try not to put too much stock into player comps but Meadows comps to Colby Rasmus, whereas Moncada is Cano (with more speed). Not saying they will turn out that way, but that says something about where scouts are willing to place these guys' ceilings at this current time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 10:07 AM) The show on MLBN I was watching yesterday, where Heyman basically said there was very little chance Q went to Pittsburgh or the Yankees, whoever the host was mentioned when twitter got all in a flux about the Nats and Sale, the Red Sox made the trade. He mentioned this to Heyman and said can it be Houston will be trading for Q soon basically asking Heyman if these insiders were being used, and of course Heyman said he is sure it has happened but really doubts anyone is being used. They are all being used. Otherwise, there really is very little use for them if you think about it. Maybe Pittsburgh will give up the prospects, maybe the threat Q is off the table makes Houston up its offer. But obviously someone is getting antsy. Yep. It's when everyone believes it's going to be 1 team who makes the deal that almost always a totally different team moves in and gets it done. Still think that team would have been the St. Louis Cardinals had Reyes not been as good as he was last fall. The pressure to win in STL is always VERY high and they wouldn't want the Pirates to get him with the Cubs already ahead of them. Reyes, Kelly, + +. Now I think Reyes is too much a part of their plans for 2017 for them to move him for Q, as his fall earned him a rotation spot. Right now, I think they are a top 20 prospect away from being able to supplement a deal with Weaver/Carson/Bader etc.

I think a lot of speculation on who we get for Q (if they trade him), depends on how far out the Sox feel our true contention window is. Taking a look at who we got for Sale and Eaton, we got prospects who are MLB ready--not ready to dominate, but at least ready to contribute at some point in 2017. Judging on that return--Moncada, Giolito, Lopez...the Sox might be looking at a shorter rebuild than one featuring a trade with returns of Single A ball studs of the Torres/Rodgers variety. I'm looking for them to end up going with the prospect package for Q that has the top player with at least AAA experience--and am not ruling out someone who has some MLB games under their belt. If they don't get that, I think they are satisfied with keeping him, because in their minds the rebuild will not take long and they will still have a couple years left of Q's services when the team starts to make a run again. Knowing our FO, they are looking to keep the pain part of the rebuild at a bare minimum by making it quick. Get MLB-ready prospects who could contribute in 2017--a low pressure rebuilding year, add a high draft pick, and start to be good in 2018--the year when they will get back to their ways in an off season where there is a crap ton of difference makers in one of the most saturated free agent markets in recent memory. I'm not sure they could sustain a long, drawn out multi-year plan of being bad--especially after being in one for years!! They just don't have the revenue they once had when people were coming to their games. They are also looking for leverage for the new TV deal. They need viewers--and they know people aren't going to watch Carlos Sanchez for too long without losing interest. They might be saying this is a long process to get a longer leash of patience from the fans...but look at the fruit the trees are bearing--MLB-ready guys who have the potential to be really good really soon.

Couple thoughts about a Quintana trade. Some of us need a perspective check because I keep hearing sheepish suggestions of trade offers--many leaving out the top names of other teams' prospect lists. Reiterating what another poster brought up earlier...we got Moncada and Giolito in trades earlier this off season. Those are top 5 prospects. I'm really surprised to see so many posters say certain prospects are "surely off limits" when we have already been receiving the very top 1-5 prospects in the game as a starting point to even larger packages! When guys like Austin Meadows are mentioned--they are blue chip prospects, but not even top 5--I'm looking at what else can be added to get that value up--not whether Meadows would be available--it's more whether they have the depth to add enough to Meadows to get a deal done. The fact that we are even talking to the Pirates is BECAUSE they have a guy like Meadows to headline a package that would be enough to get Q. There are many teams right now who do NOT have that top 10 name to START the discussion. SO...if you are one who has been nervously hesitant to bring up certain prospects' names as if to say we shouldn't even mention them...I would suggest thinking MUCH bigger--because if they are a prospect at ANY level of the game, they ARE in play for a player like Quintana. Quintana isn't just a guy you trade for, he's a guy who you break the bank to make sure YOU are the team who gets him and not a competitor--because whoever gets him will be enabled to acquire a young, controllable all-star front line starter at virtually no cost $ wise. So yes...to pay for that will require a complete scrounging of whatever value your minor league system holds and hope your offer is more than just about every other team who has intentions of contending in the next 3 years. Especially if you are smaller market with a lower free agent budget, this is your very rare shot to acquire a difference maker for very little monetary compensation. On the flip side...if you're the Sox...you can choose which package suits your liking the most. If you don't see that top 5, top 10 name, or an offer that might lack that name but is VERY saturated with multiple top 50 names, you confidently say Merry Christmas to you and yours, but no thank you!