Jump to content

Quintana Rumors: Round and round and round we go


GGajewski18
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 05:42 PM)
Astros number 30 prospect. Not all glove, 50 hit tool with no power. High defensive marks. Severino from Washington is more elite all glove type. I'd target em both... Robertson and Q.

 

 

According to Baseball America most recent issue, Stubbs is their #10 prospect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 05:07 PM)
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-24-pros...lorado-rockies/

 

Fangraphs review of Rockies' prospects. They are pretty down on McMahon.

McMahon struggled a bit at AA in 2016. Not sure he is any better than Trey M.

 

I still think Rockies are more interested in Abreu than Q.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 07:50 PM)
I wonder if people here would prefer Dahl in a deal or Rodgers. I actually like Dahl especially with the lack of legit OF prospects in oir system. Not sure if Colorado would deal him though.

 

Dahl personally, could give the team an even quicker turn around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 05:53 PM)
The amount of anchoring people have to the BA 100 list is crazy. I wonder if even the clubs themselves are influenced

Well it's pretty much a consensus evaluation of players across multiple publications - so I don't think it's odd nor do I doubt teams using it as a reference. In fact, what's so crazy about it? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 05:31 PM)
Would people here rather have Pint or Hoffman as a second piece behind Rodgers?

I would prefer Pint

 

If the Sox asked for Martes/Tucker/Musgrove and are standing firm going by BA's midseason ranking and TPoP surplus value calculator the sox value Quintana at 97.8m now having said that prospect values and how the sox and other organizations view their value is more of an art and less of a science.

 

A Rodgers/Pint/Tapia package depending on where you view Pint ranges from 99.1m to 112m, its similar if you replace Pint with German Marquez but on the lower end at 98.2. I find it hard to believe if the rockies are getting Q that they'll want to strip their major league ready arms like German/Hoffman/Freeland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems "surplus value" calculators are pretty hard to utilize unless that prospect's in AA or AAA...and, even then, if you were to go back over the last 20-30 years of BA Top 100 lists and see how many of those prospects lived up to their original "surplus value" calculations, it would be WAY OFF if you compared projections and reality.

 

It might give you some type of rough estimation at the time of the trade (who won, who lost the deal, from an immediate/instant reaction standpoint)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 08:38 PM)
I would prefer Pint

 

If the Sox asked for Martes/Tucker/Musgrove and are standing firm going by BA's midseason ranking and TPoP surplus value calculator the sox value Quintana at 97.8m now having said that prospect values and how the sox and other organizations view their value is more of an art and less of a science.

 

A Rodgers/Pint/Tapia package depending on where you view Pint ranges from 99.1m to 112m, its similar if you replace Pint with German Marquez but on the lower end at 98.2. I find it hard to believe if the rockies are getting Q that they'll want to strip their major league ready arms like German/Hoffman/Freeland

 

I don't see the Rockies being willing to part with major prospects for q. I could be wrong, and they do need pitching, but I'm not sure they feel close enough to go all in like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 09:29 PM)
It seems "surplus value" calculators are pretty hard to utilize unless that prospect's in AA or AAA...and, even then, if you were to go back over the last 20-30 years of BA Top 100 lists and see how many of those prospects lived up to their original "surplus value" calculations, it would be WAY OFF if you compared projections and reality.

 

It might give you some type of rough estimation at the time of the trade (who won, who lost the deal, from an immediate/instant reaction standpoint)...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Astros wouldn't settle for Martes/Tucker/Musgrove, id meet them half way and go Martes/Tucker/Whitley. I know the Sox need hitters but Martes and Whitley are just too good to pass up if they can both be had. Martes/Whitley/Reed/Fisher would be fine with me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 10:14 PM)
I don't see the Rockies being willing to part with major prospects for q. I could be wrong, and they do need pitching, but I'm not sure they feel close enough to go all in like that

 

They just signed Ian Desmond for 5 years and are still talking about adding Trumbo or another 1B. I can't say if they'll move top prospects or not but it seems like they think they can compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 11, 2016 -> 11:45 PM)
They just signed Ian Desmond for 5 years and are still talking about adding Trumbo or another 1B. I can't say if they'll move top prospects or not but it seems like they think they can compete.

 

For me to accept a Rockies deal it would have to closely match the return of the sale deal

 

Rodgers as a centerpiece, top ten prospect

 

Plus either pint or Hoffman as a secondary piece

 

I could see the sox requesting Murphy as the third player to finish off a deal

 

Rodgers, Hoffman and Murphy would be a nice package

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 01:03 AM)
Sold

They were absolutely unbeatable for years. Not only did they have Tapia, Moran, and Reed hitting 50 home runs a year but they also signed Harper who was putting up MVP numbers and Altuve nearly breaking hit records.

 

Anyways back on topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 12:32 AM)
They were absolutely unbeatable for years. Not only did they have Tapia, Moran, and Reed hitting 50 home runs a year but they also signed Harper who was putting up MVP numbers and Altuve nearly breaking hit records.

 

Anyways back on topic.

 

While we are on the topic of video games happenings, I swear, EVERY YEAR of MLB The Show I had ended with Sale on the Red Sox at some point. And I think Abreu always ended up going to like either NY or BOS. And the Sox always ended up with Machado I think, or some INF star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...