19 Dec 2016 23:12:36
Rumors are Yankees are really interested in Quintana no surprise since almost every team is

White Sox trade: Quintana
Yankees trade: Mateo, Rutherford, Sheffield, Tate

If you think Sale's contract was team friendly, Quintana's is the same amount of money but he has another year. I feel 3 top 100 prospects and another really good prospect does this, plus they don't give up a hugely big prospect.

1.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 01:22:04
Red Sox gave up 2 Top 100 prospects for Sale and you want 3 for Quintana- plus Tate a 2015 #6 overall pick. Not happening. No thanks.

2.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 01:26:45
Not even close to enough for any cost controlled pitcher in baseball. I think you've forgotten how much the price of pitching has risen in recent years. Cubs literally traded one of the better prospects in baseball and 2 more type 100 type prospects and a lesser bullpen/ 6th starter type for half a season of Arnoldo's Chapman.

3.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 01:47:26
Im bias but I think the value is there. Yanks keep their current young contributors like Sanchez, Bird, DiDi and Judge (even if he finished weak he's solid) and their two top prospects in Torres and Frazier.

Not to mention Q for 4 years at an average of $9 Million leaves them tons of cap space for an upcoming FA class of Machado, Harper, etc.

4.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 02:45:56
I think your proposal is fair, and might just get it done. If not, it's not far off.

5.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 02:53:06
X- Cubs were only 1 player away (stud closer) when they overpaid. Can't compare Chapman value at his position to Q's at his position. Chap top 3 at closer. Q not top 3 SP.
Also, failed to argue against my view. Bos got Sale (better than Q) for 2 Top 100 prospects plus. Why should Yanks give up 3? #18 Mateo plus 1st round picks in '14 (Sheffield, ) '15 (Tate, ) and '16 (Rutherford. )?

6.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 02:55:41
Mamba, you can't simply compare the Sale trade to this one. Moncada is the #1 prospect in baseball so that's why they only got 1 more top 100 prospect. Mateo is the highest of the proposed 3 prospects and is around #18 or 19, not near #1.

7.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 03:23:50
They are rumors and I don't see it happening as it a contradiction to what the yankees are doing, getting younger.

8.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 03:27:11
Xruben31, do not compare trade deadlines value to offseason value and plus the cubs were different these two situations, a team desperate in July, and a trade in January, r two totally different thingd.

9.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 03:55:31
Not sure if I posted this yet but if I did sorry for the double comment.

Mitch you can't really compare this deal to Sale. The white sox got the number one prospect and Kopech whom should be top 10 going into the season, also 2 other prospects. This deal is Mateo who could be top 25, Rutherford maybe top 50 and Sheffield top 80, then Tate who could possibly make top 100.

Ruben the Cubs paid that much because they were desperate they wanted to win a title.

10.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 05:50:52
Mamba- Again, #18 plus 3 first round picks for Q (lesser than Sale. ) None older than 23.In conclusion, Sale = #1 and #31 plus 2 average prospects. Q = #18 #51 #74 and Tate (#46 in '15.) Sorry, don't see it.
Sale, maybe. Q, no thanks-price too high. I want to see if anyone pays that price. Sox wanted, but Houston wouldn't give up Martes, Tucker and Musgrove. Only 3- #29 #50 and out of top 100. Still no deal. Less than what you are asking for from Yanks. Time will tell.

11.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 11:37:27
It just takes one team.

12.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 13:53:30
Tate was number 4 overall not.

13.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 14:15:19
Cubbies fan please tell me where in the original post I compared the Sale trade with this one? All I did was point out they would make the same amount of money but Quintana would be under contract for another season.

Batman while I agree that's what they're doing Quintana isn't exactly an old player, he's controllable for awhile and none of the guys they would trade would have an impact this season. Also the Yankees are trying to contend as well.

Mitch I really don't get how you don't understand why. Moncada and Kopech are both ranked higher than all three in the trade, thus more value for lack of better word. It's quality over quantity. Also since you brought up the 3 first round picks they don't always pan out there's no promise they'll be stars. Just ask the Rays about Beckham number 1 overall pick about 7 years ago not lived up to hype.

14.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 16:33:03
God I really can't wait till Q gets traded just to silence everyone on this site who undervalues him so much.

Said it before but a guy who's 8th in WAR the last 3 years, 27, is payed $36 million over 4 years is valuable.

Were seriously debating where a guy was draft in 2015 or where he ranks on a list? Look at the top 100 prospects in 2014, 27 of them are currently on a 40 man roster. 2013's list has 31 players currently on a 40 man roster.

Better yet look at the draft going back to 2010. there's maybe 5 players every year that end up making it. let's not put to much value on "potential".

15.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 16:33:49
Mamba-would love to see where Kopech is ranked higher than Mateo. Again, not saying all three 1st rounders will pan out-but it's their value. Go ask Hous (or any other team) if they are willing to give up a Top 20 prospect plus three consecutive 1st rounders for Q. Forget names-just values. Never going to happen. BTW-concerning 1st rounders-why do you think Cespedes last year and Encarnacion and Bautista are taking so long to sign. LOSS of 1st ROUNDER as compensation. In conclusion-Yanks like Q but not for that price. If Hous or NYY don't bite on Q-who will? Hefty price tag.

16.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 16:38:48
Also Mitch,

Please tell me where you saw the report that Houston turned the ChiSox down. I (and most everyone else in Chicago) saw a report they were asking for those 3 as headliners.

Just because talks didn't lead to anything doesn't give room for us to spectate on who said what and then simply see our opinion of the trade as an actual conclusion. that's a slippery slope.

You don't know how the talks went down and neither does anyone else on this site.

17.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 18:19:55
All due respect Drake, Gammons reported the details on the Q proposition (twitter post 12/ 12/ 16)-I think I would trust him before you. He wrote Astros turned down deal. So, if Chisox wanted those 3 and deal wasn't made-ASTROS TURNED DOWN THE DEAL. Simple. So basically, Astros, me and everyone (your word) on site thinks you're wrong.
BTW- you keep referencing WAR as a prime stat in your argument. According to WAR Heyward was worth $26 mil/ year. BENCHED in Series. WAR is lacking.
Where a player was drafted or ranking as a prospect is not a determining factor in success. It is however a useful tool in determining asset value and asset management.
Finally-all I'm saying is no team will give up #18 prospect and three consecutive 1st rounders for Q.
If Chisox get that I will apologize.

18.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 18:39:46
Sorry- Gammons post was 12/ 10/ 16. Bad typist.

19.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 19:09:43
The report by Gammons was that they asked for the 3 prospects, no indicator of what further talks included.

And JayHay had a WAR of 1.6 last year so not sure what you're referring to. Not getting into a stats argument with the same guy who says that Wins and Loses are a good indicator of talent.

20.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 19:11:36
"When Astros askewd on Jose Quintana, Chisox asked 3 names:Francis Martes, Kyle Tucker, Joe Musgrove"

The exact tweet so we're all clear.

21.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 20:34:33
Drake -like I said, Astros offered lesser pkg than Yanks and they turned it down. Heyward signed for$26mil/ yr AFTER he had 6.5 and 6.2 WAR in '15 and '14. As for wins and losses, and ALL STATS by themselves they don't accurately assess value. Scherzer .741 win % vs. team .586. Porcello .846 and Sox .574. Pitchers that consistently have higher win % than team are invaluable (Cy Youngs in '16)Mussina for example won 20 once but is borderline HOFer. That's why wins and losses is a useful determinant in assessing value. I hope that clears it up for you. WAR is not EVERYTHING.
So in conclusion, Astros thought Chisox offer was too rich and you expect Yanks to give up even more. That is why everyone (your word) disagrees with your evaluation on Q.

22.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 22:05:06
Alright I seriously don't know if you're trolling me on purpose or not at this point. Where in that tweet does it say that Houston turned the offer down? Where did I say everyone disagrees with me?

If you don't put value on Quintana i cannot help you. Look at the era, strikeouts, innings, k/ 9, B. B. / 9, k/ B. B., quality starts. Look at the contract.

23.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 22:10:20
Mitch you realize that you're about the only person on here that thinks this isn't fair. Also where could he go? Dodgers, Rockies, Rangers, Cubs if the Sox were willing to do so but I doubt.

And have you ever heard about signability in the draft? Some players fall to later in drafts due to them not wanting to sign, it happens in the first round a lot a team drafts a player with a high chance to sign then drafts a guy who may be better but may not be as likely to sign later. So does that mean the person who isn't as good but got drafted in the first round has more value than the better guy who got drafted in a later round?

24.) 20 Dec 2016
20 Dec 2016 23:05:34
Drake-if Gammons reported what the Chisox asked for and the trade was not made-DUH Astros turned it down. You were the one who said that "everyone" was undervaluing Q. Every time I show up your fallacies you can't respond with a compelling counterpoint. Again I countered your not understanding a simple tweet and used your own words against you. So Astros turned down offer and you said everyone is undervaluing Q.
Now. Mamba. Dodgers still need 2B before SP. Rockies are interesting, but I don't think they have organizational depth, other than Blackmon, who GM says they won't trade. Rangers gave up 6 of top 7 prospects at deadline. If they were to include Profar and Gallo in trade-could get done. Then they need 1B (Napoli, Encarnacion) Would they give up last prime trade chips and then add salary? Maybe. Cubs probably not making trade with Sox. So, there are not many trade partners who match well with Chisox demands. Now about your signability argument-not relevant to my statement. My statement is--"No GM in baseball is giving up a Top 20 prospect plus three consecutive 1st rounders for Quintana" Do you think Rockies or Rangers or Astros would give up their top prospect plus 1st rounder in '17,'18 and '19? Not happening! That is my statement. Feel free to respond with any compelling argument-if you have one.

25.) 21 Dec 2016
21 Dec 2016 05:19:19
Not even remotely close for Chicago to accept. Quintana probably has more value than Sale simply due to cost and control years.

If I'm Chicago, I hold out for Clint Frazier + Gleyber Torres. New York obviously declines, but I don't move him for anything less than the best.

Honestly, I bet Chicago holds until July, when they can get even more out of a team wanting to contend.

26.) 21 Dec 2016
21 Dec 2016 14:48:26
Husker-are you kidding me? Where does Q compare to Sale. Same team-higher win %, almost half a run better ERA, 1.25WHIP vs.1.03 etc. Stuff wise- Q's 92 mph fastball (highest of career) and assortment of pitches would not play up as well as Sale's in AL East. He is GOOD. Sale's stuff is much better. No way he gets more than Sale. You want 2 Top 20 prospects for Q-not happening. Astros -who many think are closer to Series than Yanks- wouldn't give up #29 and 50. The only thing that we agree on is that NYY declines and Chisox would be better off waiting until july. Bottom line- IF Quintana can keep IMPROVING year after year he may be worth it. But, I think last year was his ceiling and I'm not giving up Torres and Frazier.