MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts


MambaGOAT's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded


Where from:

Favourite player:

Best team moment:



MambaGOAT's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To MambaGOAT's Posts



To MambaGOAT's last 5 rumours posts


To MambaGOAT's last 5 talk posts


To MambaGOAT's last 5 rumour replies


To MambaGOAT's last 5 talk replies


MambaGOAT's rumours posts with other poster's replies to MambaGOAT's rumours posts


14 Jan 2017 20:55:31
White Sox trade: Frazier
Giants trade: Shaw, Jordan Johnson, Dylan Davis

White Sox get their 1B/ DH of the future, Johnson who has excellent command and could be a number 3 starter, and Dylan Davis who is so underrated he almost hit 30 homers and drove in 90 RBIs.

Giants get the power righty bat they need, this move let's Nunez be a utility player or even the starter in LF. Frazier isn't really expensive either he's only making 12M this season and is going to be a free agent after the season. Getting him makes the Giants lineup the deepest 1-8 can beat you and even 1-9 when Madbum is pitching


1.) 15 Jan 2017 02:43:42
Trade isn't bad at all. Not sure the chisox get that back but I sure hope so. However "deepest 1-8" in what? Their division? Yeah possibly.

2.) 15 Jan 2017 17:22:06
Eduardo Nunez in the outfield is a frightening thought.

3.) 15 Jan 2017 20:00:18
I'd much rather have Nunez in the outfield than a platoon of Parker and Williamson

4.) 17 Jan 2017 03:26:29
Why not keep Nunez at 3B and deal for Bruce?

5.) 17 Jan 2017 07:05:43
Giants are already lefty heavy and Frazier is way better than Bruce.

6.) 18 Jan 2017 02:26:36
If they trade for a rental piece like that, I think JD Martinez is a better fit. Even if he isn't much of a defensive outfielder, you at least have someone with legitimate outfield experience as opposed to Nunez. Martinez is a better hitter than Frazier too.



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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 11:37:27
It just takes one team.

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

13.) 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 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 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 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 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 18:39:46
Sorry- Gammons post was 12/ 10/ 16. Bad typist.

19.) 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 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 20:34:33
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 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 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 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 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 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.



19 Dec 2016 22:04:43
Giants need a power outfielder bad so a couple options

Bautista 2/ 32.5 with mutual option for second year


Giants trade: Jordan Johnson, Clayton Blackburn
Mets trade: Bruce

Bruce crushes it against the Giants so if you can't get him out, acquire him. Let's not forget he was very good prior to the mets trade, and wouldn't cost that much in terms of prospects plus he's only under contract for this season.


1.) 20 Dec 2016 01:37:15
Giants are bringing on Bautista unless he signs for ridiculously cheap.

2.) 20 Dec 2016 02:49:37
I think the Giants could get Bruce, which would be a great addition. Not sure they want to spend for Joey Bats.

3.) 20 Dec 2016 04:03:35
^Are not. I thought I said that.

(Of course, Batman will claim that 'since I said it, I meant it. ')

4.) 20 Dec 2016 14:18:54
Huskers if he came on a one year cheap deal to rebuild value I wouldn't mind and I don't think management would either.

Red Sox Guy only problem with Bruce is he's another lefty and they already have Belt, Panik, Crawford, Span, in the lineup that'd leave Posey, Nunez, and Pence as the only regular rightys.

5.) 20 Dec 2016 23:07:03
Maybe 1-year, $8M might be worth it.

He is not good defensively, at all.



15 Dec 2016 05:04:24
White Sox trade: Quintana
Rockies trade: Hoffman, Tapia, Marquez, Freeland, Wall

White Sox get 3 top 100 prospects plus another solid arm and really good 2B

Rockies add a guy that they can pair with Gray to make a really good 1, 2 punch.


1.) 15 Dec 2016 11:49:21
More needed from Rox.

2.) 15 Dec 2016 22:10:16
Red Sox guy this is 4/ 5 top five prospects and a top qp pick a couple of years ago I think this will do the job.

3.) 15 Dec 2016 23:56:13
A Rockies pitching prospect is about like an ugly pig contest - Just because you are ranked high doesn't mean you deserve it.

4.) 16 Dec 2016 04:11:23
So 2 top 100 prospect pitchers are bad just because they play for the Rockies? Hoffman is a top 40 prospect yet I'm assuming you feel like he's a "bum"

5.) 16 Dec 2016 11:40:51
He's a Rockies pitcher. Nuff said.

6.) 16 Dec 2016 18:08:48
Then all Rockies hitters must be stars then.

7.) 17 Dec 2016 15:48:22
All Rockies hitters are better because they play in Colorado. All Rockies pitchers are worse because of that. Check facts.



12 Dec 2016 11:48:38
White Sox trade: Quintana, Robertson
Dodgers trade: Puig, Bellinger, De Leon, Alvarez, Sheffield

White Sox asked Houston for a young MLB talent plus top 2 prospects, they get Puig where if Abreu stays can possibly keep him in check, top 2 prospects and 2 more good prospects.

Dodgers get a number 2 starter and their closer, I'm sorry I don't view Hill as a number 2 due to injury history I feel the Dodgers need a guy whom they can trust to go 180 innings, Robertson is a much cheaper alternative to Jansen.


1.) 12 Dec 2016 13:35:09
Switch Alvarez to Verdugo and ill take it.

2.) 12 Dec 2016 16:58:17
i think the White Sox would prefer Thompson or Toels over Puig so switch Puig out for one of them and I think the deal is more believable.




MambaGOAT's talk posts with other poster's replies to MambaGOAT's talk posts


24 Feb 2017 00:25:03

I was reading an article about NHL players that play in California and have been employed for 7 years may opt out and hit free agency due to a Law. The article brought up Mike Trout as he has played 7 years for the Angels, meaning if he wish he could very well opt out and hit free agency 3 years early. I'm not sure if the Angels are aware of this law but if I'm Trout I'm not staying on a losing team any longer, there's no future in the minors and the team doesn't really have a chance at making the playoffs any time soon.

You could argue all you want but there's a law that states this


1.) 24 Feb 2017 04:53:07
I am not sure how true this is but if it is true I think Trout stays. In my opinion he will be an Angle for life.

2.) 26 Feb 2017 02:07:55
Very Interesting. If this is true, the Angels better trade him quickly. Yes, they will probably be dead last if they trade him but it is the only way to get a better future. I even have possible scenarios of what teams could have the players to get him. I even have the White Sox and The Padres but if these teams would be willing to give up there future, i have scenarios. Interested in seeing them?

3.) 27 Feb 2017 14:48:24
This is nothing new, I read that article 6 months ago. I highly doubt this will happen.

4.) 28 Feb 2017 06:43:59
I work in a law office that deals with employment cases all the time, I can tell you that there's a reason no California athlete has invoked this rule: no judge will hear a case pertaining to it.

The courts are already full enough, and if they have to take time to listen to two sides bicker over matters that are covered in a Union agreement, it's a waste of time. They'll simply defer to the CBA and call it a day.

Otherwise, it'll be in the courts for years, which doesn't affect Arte Moreno one bit and hurts Mike Trout to the fullest.

Judges don't want to take on more cases, and especially not those where the arguments have been settled by a CBA.



14 Dec 2016 08:19:37
I wanna talk about Gallo and Profar for a second but mainly Gallo.

I would rather have players who are unknown when it comes to the playing in the majors than guys that have a failed, because there's still a chance that those that haven't played in the majors will succeed. And I'm willing to bet that many FO and baseball experts would agree.

Now let's talk just about Gallo, I've stated many times that Gallo is the next Mark Reynolds. People don't seem to believe me but when Reynolds was "good" he was hitting 40 homers and set the record for strikeouts in a season with over 220 and hit .260. Gallo though given a small sample size would average 21 homers, 232 strikeouts and hit less than .200. I may even be generous with the Mark Reynolds comp, until Gallo proves he can go without striking out all the time he has little to no value in my opinion.


1.) 14 Dec 2016 16:29:58
There are several differences that make Gallo way, way better:

1. Gallo's power is more reliable. He has some of the best power scouts have ever seen.
2. Much of his problem exists in that he swings and misses. The more pitches he sees, the better he'll see the ball. Reynolds doesn't swing and miss very much, which makes it all the more frustrating. Gallo will begin to see the ball>
3. Remove all of the 30 plate appearances from 2016. They don't matter. It's a tiny sample size pulling down the numbers. When you do that, yes, he strikes out a bunch, but there's still a TON of success on the peripherals.

Gallo will be fine. Any decent hitting coach will work out the kinks.

2.) 14 Dec 2016 22:50:07
1. I'm not saying he doesn't have amazing power, but at what point does the strikeouts outweigh the power? If he hits 40 homeruns but strikeout 210 times and hits .205 is he still that good?

2. I'm sorry I meant to comp him to younger Reynolds when he was hitting tons of homeruns but striking out a lot, Reynolds has obviously cut down on both strikeouts and power, but at first look that's just the vibe I get

3. Even his numbers in 2015 were really bad, he was even bad at AAA this year his power numbers went way down. I'm sure he'll have some success but it will be limited due to him only being a power hitter.

3.) 15 Dec 2016 03:34:12
1. That is a possibility, but the fact he's missing the ball is a better sign than just striking out. Again, with experience, he'll see the ball better.

2. Reynolds wasn't half the player Gallo was as a youngster.

3. His 2015 numbers were not bad, especially for a guy who hardly had 100 PAs.

4.) 15 Dec 2016 05:38:16
Change of scenery might benefit him, a trade to the rebuilding White Sox as part of a deal for Abreu might work.




MambaGOAT's rumour replies


Click To View This Thread

25 Jan 2017 19:46:28
Brach is an all star, Bruce is a scrub value isn't equal. Brach still has multiple years of control Bruce doesn't. Mets would be lucky to get a semi decent player for him there is no planet where Bruce is better than Trumbo.

Red Sox Guy has no clue what he's talking about 10 out of 10 times




Click To View This Thread

23 Jan 2017 20:48:26
Profar is the definition of bust, missed 2 whole years due to injuries, and hadn't been close to productive since.




Click To View This Thread

20 Jan 2017 22:23:38
Tillman is very much an ace he's underrated and has been one of the best pitchers in the AL East for the past 5 seasons. IMO last year the O's could've very well made the ALCS if they pitched Britton in the wildcard, they were a better team than Texas for sure. They have 2 years left to contend, they have a Chance to be title contenders




Click To View This Thread

20 Jan 2017 14:48:33
Don't have the roster to finish 2-3 in the AL East are you joking? They're basically the same team as last year, the only team in the East that improved was the Red Sox! Toronto is aging and doubtful their rotation can produce similar results, Yankees while they added Chapman have huge question marks in rotation, also when the had Chapman last year they weren't that competitive now they don't have Miller so even less so. This is a team that's been told for years that they won't do well yet they've exceeded expectations, I very much expect this team to be a 85-90 win team challenging the Sox for the AL East title




Click To View This Thread

17 Jan 2017 07:05:43
Giants are already lefty heavy and Frazier is way better than Bruce.





MambaGOAT's talk replies