October 6, 201411 yr QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 07:02 AM) That's pretty much EXACTLY what I suggested in my post, except adding Viciedo, lol. Now we're just arguing semantics. You said Chris Beck, one or two fliers, & Tank for good measure. Beck isn't a top 10 prospect, and I wouldn't consider the fliers to be top 15 guys when Beck barely makes the cut. When I say three guys in the 6 to 15 range I'm talking Montas or Danish as the headliner, with two other guys like Sanchez & Ravelo (or even Beck) included. That's a significantly better package than what you proposed.
October 6, 201411 yr Author QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 06:23 AM) Now we're just arguing semantics. You said Chris Beck, one or two fliers, & Tank for good measure. Beck isn't a top 10 prospect, and I wouldn't consider the fliers to be top 15 guys when Beck barely makes the cut. When I say three guys in the 6 to 15 range I'm talking Montas or Danish as the headliner, with two other guys like Sanchez & Ravelo (or even Beck) included. That's a significantly better package than what you proposed. I would argue that we've been arguing semantics since you began arguing What I actually said was "a mid-top ten guy" and then suggested in parentheses that it might be Chris Beck. The important part of the sentence wasn't Chris Beck, it was Mid-top ten guy. Many people consider Beck to be around the middle of the top ten in our prospects lists. It's okay if you don't -- to be honest I'm not that high on him either -- but then you can insert a different name in there instead. Even assuming Beck = someone like Montas or Danish, what I proposed might be a little low, certainly. Hence the rest of the post detailing that the offer might be way off. Either way, I think your indication that my post was completely bonkers isn't exactly being fair to all of the words and sentences it contained other than "Chris Beck."
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.