They weren't. If the Braves were to offer them both for Quintana, Jose would've been a Brave the second Hahn received the offer.

 

Some consider Acuna to be the best prospect in baseball right now, and they might have a point.

 

Braves were rumored to dangle albies, who I really like. Who knows what else was in the package though?

I think Albies, Allard/Soroka, and two other non-zero MLB chance pieces would've been better than the Cubs trade. But I can also see why you might take the topheavy package in that scenario.

 

I doubt Allard or soroka were offered in the package. Otherwise I think a deal might have had legs.

I don't think it would have been unreasonable for the Sox to not have valued Albies as highly as some of the prospect publications. I think his upside is somewhat lower compared to Moncada and Jimenez

I don't think it would have been unreasonable for the Sox to not have valued Albies as highly as some of the prospect publications. I think his upside is somewhat lower compared to Moncada and Jimenez

 

I really like albies as a prospect, but if the Sox plan on keeping Anderson at sand moncada at 2b I can see why they would prefer Jimenez

To put the deal into perspective, a roughly comparable package from the Braves – just based on BA’s rankings — would include outfielder Ronald Acuna (ranked No. 10 overall), pitcher Luiz Gohara (No. 76) and two lesser prospects.

 

 

http://www.ajc.com/sports/baseball/leadoff...RGCFRO/?src=rss

Who has the top farm system now, the Braves or White Sox?

I may be biased but I'll say the Sox. The depth is insane, and 36% of the top 11 is unreal

Albiese plus Acuna would have made the Braves offer far and away better than the Cubs

Ablies plus a bottom top 100 guy puts the Braves offer in the same ball park, such that it isn't "far and away" better.

 

Albies is clearly below Jimenez. Cease is clearly above the bottom of the top 100, ergo, this is totally wrong.

I can guarantee that whatever else was on the table, as a whole, was not as good as the Cubs offer. How do I know? Because the Sox chose the Cubs offer.

 

Totally this. If there was ANY other offer that was even equal to what the Cubs did, the Sox would have done it. All things being equal they would have much rather dealt with just about anyone else out there. If the Braves had offered an equal or better deal, they would have taken it. The rest is just worthless Cubs rhetoric.

I may be biased but I'll say the Sox. The depth is insane, and 36% of the top 11 is unreal

 

Who has 4 of the top 11?

I'm cautiously optimistic with the return for Quintana. I still can't shake the belief that Hahn could've/should've held out for one of Happ/Candelario/Scwarber as the third piece in the deal.

 

I have no problem with Jimenez and Cease as prospects but I can't be ecstatic over getting two single A level players for Q, a still young, left handed pitcher proven to be one of the best starting pitchers in the majors over the past several years who is under a very reasonable contract for three more years. Cautiously optimistic over their potential, yes, but not ecstatic.

 

When they're offering Schwarber plus for Fulmer?

 

Fulmer's arguably worth the same or even more than Q. The left handedness makes to close to equal.

 

Happ would never have been available for anyone other than Archer, who used to be their property once upon a time. If Q had a 2.75-3.25 era, sure, maybe you can dream that big. Not at 4.49.

 

 

They don't play in the same league, they don't share the same fans. They play six times a year, and VERY rarely are both teams good during the same season. The Cubs seasons have no bearing on the White Sox (not withstanding this latest trade )

 

When the Sox are actually competitive, I give the Cubs very little thought aside from the six times the Sox play them. I can't say that about the Twins, Indians, Tigers, etc.

 

They do compete for some fans though. When the Sox rating and season ticket base skyrocketed in 2005 and 2006, do you think those were all hardcore Sox fans? I doubt it, I guarantee a lot of these new arrivals are decked in head to toe Cubs gear today.

 

And the fans they don't share are what can help create the rivalry. You might not give the Cubs much thought, but a lot of other fans do, as this board shows. When you have two teams living in such proximity, a rivalry just creates itself, when there is so much interaction between fans. It's a different type of rivalry than a divisional one, but it's definitely there. (And this has nothing to do with the trade, I fully support it, just arguing semantics )

They do compete for some fans though. When the Sox rating and season ticket base skyrocketed in 2005 and 2006, do you think those were all hardcore Sox fans? I doubt it, I guarantee a lot of these new arrivals are decked in head to toe Cubs gear today.

 

And the fans they don't share are what can help create the rivalry. You might not give the Cubs much thought, but a lot of other fans do, as this board shows. When you have two teams living in such proximity, a rivalry just creates itself, when there is so much interaction between fans. It's a different type of rivalry than a divisional one, but it's definitely there. (And this has nothing to do with the trade, I fully support it, just arguing semantics )

 

This is by far my least favorite "debate" in Chicago sports. The Cubs and Sox are rivals in the same way that other teams that simultaneously play in the same sports league and city have been rivals since the beginning of time. It's been written into songs, and into the mythology of the city.

 

Saying you don't care about the other team -- or that you don't notice them, or that they are insignificant to you -- doesn't change this self-evident fact. It's usually just a passive-aggressive way of putting the other team down. Cub fans in particular have favored this approach over the years. But regardless whether you punch your brother in the face, or give him the silent treatment instead, he's still going to be there.

They do compete for some fans though. When the Sox rating and season ticket base skyrocketed in 2005 and 2006, do you think those were all hardcore Sox fans? I doubt it, I guarantee a lot of these new arrivals are decked in head to toe Cubs gear today.

 

And the fans they don't share are what can help create the rivalry. You might not give the Cubs much thought, but a lot of other fans do, as this board shows. When you have two teams living in such proximity, a rivalry just creates itself, when there is so much interaction between fans. It's a different type of rivalry than a divisional one, but it's definitely there. (And this has nothing to do with the trade, I fully support it, just arguing semantics )

 

I just refuse to believe that and there's no way to even prove it. Someone who is a big enough fan to purchase season tickets is not the kind of fan that flips teams based on who is winning. The spike in 05/06 was because for the first time in most Sox fan's lifetimes they had what looked to be a real legit team and the fans got behind them. Then almost instantly the team cratered back to where it's been for the other 90 years and people dropped season tickets because you can go to a game for $4 without any trouble.

Edited July 18, 20178 yr by Jenksy Cat

exactly, living in Indy, season tickets were never in the cards for myself, but after 2005 I bought an Ozzy plan (13 games) and drove up to see a ton of games.

exactly, living in Indy, season tickets were never in the cards for myself, but after 2005 I bought an Ozzy plan (13 games) and drove up to see a ton of games.

 

My family went a few years after 2005 with season tickets because "we wanted first dibs on the playoff tickets". That plan died pretty swiftly and we canceled them as there was no point.

Just had a funny thought with a few ironic twists. All winter long Huntington refused to pull the trigger on Q because of Meadows. Meadows is having a down year as well as two (Glasgow/Newman) of the prospects offered for Q. Now, Q is with their division rival for at least the next three seasons. Oh, and the Sox got a better OF prospect to headline the deal. Hope Huntington and Meadows are happy together.

Just had a funny thought with a few ironic twists. All winter long Huntington refused to pull the trigger on Q because of Meadows. Meadows is having a down year as well as two (Glasgow/Newman) of the prospects offered for Q. Now, Q is with their division rival for at least the next three seasons. Oh, and the Sox got a better OF prospect to headline the deal. Hope Huntington and Meadows are happy together.

 

I'm not sure the Pirates were ever serious contenders for Quintana. I know they were interested, but it sounded like they wanted him as if the market was going to undervalue him. This offseason always felt like the Astros or Yankees were the favorites, and then the Cubs rotation blew up and they became a perfect fit.

I'm not sure the Pirates were ever serious contenders for Quintana. I know they were interested, but it sounded like they wanted him as if the market was going to undervalue him. This offseason always felt like the Astros or Yankees were the favorites, and then the Cubs rotation blew up and they became a perfect fit.

IMO, the reason the Pirates weren't ever serious contenders is that they would not unpack Meadows. There was no way the Pirates were going to have the pieces to do it without him.

 

They probably played around with "McCutchen to the Yankees" as a way to make it work but that never made sense.

IMO, the reason the Pirates weren't ever serious contenders is that they would not unpack Meadows. There was no way the Pirates were going to have the pieces to do it without him.

The probably weren't but they should have been. Quintana is a near perfect player for them - excellent pitcher and cost controlled.

They run the risk of letting their prospects rot on the vine. Heck Hanson already did, to the Sox benefit.

Edited July 19, 20178 yr by GreenSox

I've seen it twice. and I'm already sick of the term, "rot on the vine."

The probably weren't but they should have been. Quintana is a near perfect player for them - excellent pitcher and cost controlled.

They run the risk of letting their prospects rot on the vine. Heck Hanson already did, to the Sox benefit.

I totally agree with you and I said at the time both Pittsburgh and Houston were stupid to not be in on that player. I wish them best of luck with the guys they have and hope they in the end are satisfied with how this season turns out.

I totally agree with you and I said at the time both Pittsburgh and Houston were stupid to not be in on that player. I wish them best of luck with the guys they have and hope they in the end are satisfied with how this season turns out.

 

With Huntington he has to deal with being on the edge so much more than Houston. Q should have been a good fit but they have very difficult balance of how many positions they virtually have to fill internally.

 

With the Astros, I straight up just think their scouting did not like Q and they seem to have a very inward looking and confident player eval system that has worked for them.

 

I would bet against them on Q, but for the Pirates I just feel bad. I wish they'd have gone for it but if they had Q would be mired in a nother "just not quite good enough" team.

So a little off topic, but can we find out how many posts and pages were on all the Q trade threads combined? It would be pretty interesting to find out who much we talk about it...

So a little off topic, but can we find out how many posts and pages were on all the Q trade threads combined? It would be pretty interesting to find out who much we talk about it...

About 2,200 or so.

About 2,200 or so.

Thank god it's over, finally

Thank god it's over, finally

 

Until Swarzak/Melky-mania hits. Then it all starts again