Why this year and why only 3B? I think the Sox need a hitter more than the need a 3B.

 

Because unlike your dreams, the Sox aren't going into a full rebuild.

Because unlike your dreams, the Sox aren't going into a full rebuild.

 

So is "ready now" an acceptable justification for taking a lesser talent in a trade? I don't think so.

So is "ready now" an acceptable justification for taking a lesser talent in a trade? I don't think so.

 

You have no idea what any of their baseball talent is when they are in the lower minors. They are prospects.

You have no idea what any of their baseball talent is when they are in the lower minors. They are prospects.

 

If this were true the Sox would be able to deal Conor Gillaspie for Albert Amora.

If this were true the Sox would be able to deal Conor Gillaspie for Albert Amora.

 

For a team that isn't going into perpetual rebuilding, having major league ready players is important. It is even more important when you are talking about dealing your #2 starter.

For a team that isn't going into perpetual rebuilding, having major league ready players is important. It is even more important when you are talking about dealing your #2 starter.

 

You would not trade Qintana for Almora and say Soler and replace Quintana via free agency?

You would not trade Qintana for Almora and say Soler and replace Quintana via free agency?

 

I can't see that scenario coming together in real life.

I can't see that scenario coming together in real life.

 

You would not be in favor of a move like that?

You would not be in favor of a move like that?

 

I could be convinced. Name a free agent almost as good as Quintana that wouldn't require a major overpay.

You would not be in favor of a move like that?

 

In favor of made up trades?

I could be convinced. Name a free agent almost as good as Quintana that wouldn't require a major overpay.

 

Exactly. Real life. If it were that easy, teams would pull these types of deals off all of the time.

I could be convinced. Name a free agent almost as good as Quintana that wouldn't require a major overpay.

 

Jimenez, Garza, Johnson anyone you think will be a solid contributer. If you believe Danks takes another step forward after surgery maybe he or Santiago takes Quintana's spot in the rotation.

Exactly. Real life. If it were that easy, teams would pull these types of deals off all of the time.

 

You believe though that such a trade would be a sign of a perpetual rebuild.

Jimenez, Garza, Johnson anyone you think will be a solid contributer. If you believe Danks takes another step forward after surgery maybe he or Santiago takes Quintana's spot in the rotation.

 

Ubaldo and Garza are not gonna be worth the large contracts they get and Johnson is a major injury concern. If Danks or Santiago step up, there is still a hole in the rotation to fill. If you sign a cheap vet, they won't be around when those Cubs prospects are ready for the majors anyway. Then you still haven't replaced Q.

Ubaldo and Garza are not gonna be worth the large contracts they get and Johnson is a major injury concern. If Danks or Santiago step up, there is still a hole in the rotation to fill. If you sign a cheap vet, they won't be around when those Cubs prospects are ready for the majors anyway. Then you still haven't replaced Q.

 

Exactly.

Ubaldo and Garza are not gonna be worth the large contracts they get and Johnson is a major injury concern. If Danks or Santiago step up, there is still a hole in the rotation to fill. If you sign a cheap vet, they won't be around when those Cubs prospects are ready for the majors anyway. Then you still haven't replaced Q.

 

Why do you have to replace Quintana then.

It isn't that a bundle of prospects wouldn't be a nice return for Quintana. The thing is, older players can get you bundles of prospects (Garza, for instance).

 

What a young pitcher can get you that free agency and veterans can't get you is another young MLB player. A player like Lawrie isn't typically available except for another young player that has that kind of potential payoff. You can think of other guys. Even Gordon Beckham never seemed like he ought to be traded because the value of a non-horrible, young, talented MLB player is high.

Why do you have to replace Quintana then.

 

Right now you have Quintana under your control for the next 5 years. We aren't just talking about 2014.

Don't those have to be named within 90 days?

 

6 months.

6 months.

 

Still wouldn't be long enough.

Right now you have Quintana under your control for the next 5 years. We aren't just talking about 2014.

 

Why replace his spot in the rotation though. Figure Danks or Santiago improve to be the #2 starter.

Still wouldn't be long enough.

 

How would a trade any time after the first week of December (GM Meeting time, no less), not be long enough?

How would a trade any time after the first week of December (GM Meeting time, no less), not be long enough?

Just face it...absolutely no team is going to trade for another team's top prospect and then leave him in that team's system for the first 4 months of the season. Zero chance. You've got the risk of injury, you've got the fact that the guy will be being coached by the other team for that time, you've got the fact that he might well learn that he's a PTBNL and it could impact his performance. There's a reason it never happens that big name prospects become PTBNL's, you're not going to shut them down until June but you're never going to let another team's doctors and coaches deal with a guy you're counting on.

 

Give a specific example...imagine we'd done something like that with a Courtney Hawkins type player and then he came out and had huge strikout totals like we saw from him this season. Do we still want the same player if his value is down? Who is coaching the guy and what adjustments are they having him make?

Just face it...absolutely no team is going to trade for another team's top prospect and then leave him in that team's system for the first 4 months of the season. Zero chance. You've got the risk of injury, you've got the fact that the guy will be being coached by the other team for that time, you've got the fact that he might well learn that he's a PTBNL and it could impact his performance. There's a reason it never happens that big name prospects become PTBNL's, you're not going to shut them down until June but you're never going to let another team's doctors and coaches deal with a guy you're counting on.

 

Give a specific example...imagine we'd done something like that with a Courtney Hawkins type player and then he came out and had huge strikout totals like we saw from him this season. Do we still want the same player if his value is down? Who is coaching the guy and what adjustments are they having him make?

 

Still doesn't mean it can't happen, I mean, none of the s*** we discuss here will ever happen anyway. It's just things to day dream about.

Just face it...absolutely no team is going to trade for another team's top prospect and then leave him in that team's system for the first 4 months of the season. Zero chance. You've got the risk of injury, you've got the fact that the guy will be being coached by the other team for that time, you've got the fact that he might well learn that he's a PTBNL and it could impact his performance. There's a reason it never happens that big name prospects become PTBNL's, you're not going to shut them down until June but you're never going to let another team's doctors and coaches deal with a guy you're counting on.

 

Give a specific example...imagine we'd done something like that with a Courtney Hawkins type player and then he came out and had huge strikout totals like we saw from him this season. Do we still want the same player if his value is down? Who is coaching the guy and what adjustments are they having him make?

 

+1