Quintana to Cubs

Super said:
when should they have dealt him and what was being offered for him at that time
Click to expand...

I said they should have dealt him after the 14 season when he put up a 2.9 ERA. He was signed through 2019 at a dirt cheap deal. I don't know what specifically they could have gotten, but its reasonable to assume they could have gotten a good haul in return. Even after last year........

The only explanation for not dealing him is you believe you will contend with him. But, they had the chance to sell high during a rebuilding period and passed.
 
Super said:
But how many pitchers of Sale's caliber with his years of cheap control get dealt? I can't think of the last time that happened.

Let's also remember Moncada has his faults. Almost 3 full years older than Acuna and, while Acuna's was a SSS, he had a lower k-rate at AA than Moncada has a AAA (almost 28%).

Kopech is plenty young, especially for his level, but the walks are really, really high. He has a crazy stuff, however. But if he doesn't work out that haul isn't so amazing.
Click to expand...

This is a fair question. How many aces or near aces in their prime, who had several years of under market control remaining, have been dealt.

Similarly, how many 6 WAR OFs on absurdly good deals have been dealt.

To be honest, I still don't quite understand why the White Sox tore it down. They were good enough to be in the playoff chase in June and decided to blow up a young core in July. Strange. This was not even a club that had a ton of bad contracts or aging players.
 
gilesfan said:
I said they should have dealt him after the 14 season when he put up a 2.9 ERA. He was signed through 2019 at a dirt cheap deal. I don't know what specifically they could have gotten, but its reasonable to assume they could have gotten a good haul in return. Even after last year........

The only explanation for not dealing him is you believe you will contend with him. But, they had the chance to sell high during a rebuilding period and passed.
Click to expand...

I agree that he probably should have been dealt in 2014.

On the other hand, there is a decent chance he is part of a playoff rotation in 2018 or 2019.
 
Southcack77 said:
This is a fair question. How many aces or near aces in their prime, who had several years of under market control remaining, have been dealt.

Similarly, how many 6 WAR OFs on absurdly good deals have been dealt.

To be honest, I still don't quite understand why the White Sox tore it down. They were good enough to be in the playoff chase in June and decided to blow up a young core in July. Strange. This was not even a club that had a ton of bad contracts or aging players.
Click to expand...

And out of this, they got 3 very risky prospects in Giolito, Kopech, and Lopez.
 
Southcack77 said:
This is a fair question. How many aces or near aces in their prime, who had several years of under market control remaining, have been dealt.

Similarly, how many 6 WAR OFs on absurdly good deals have been dealt.

To be honest, I still don't quite understand why the White Sox tore it down. They were good enough to be in the playoff chase in June and decided to blow up a young core in July. Strange. This was not even a club that had a ton of bad contracts or aging players.
Click to expand...

They were one of the really odd cases IMO. Given that they're a big-market club typically with some financial flexibility and muscles when they choose to flex them you've gotta figure that their management team simply sold their investors on the "if you're not contending, you need to be rebuilding" model. It's not like they haven't been in position to make a couple of aggressive trades and/or bring in a couple of highly-paid guys from rebuilding clubs to become serious contenders when they still had Sale/Quintana/Eaton. They could've just as easily added pieces like Kemp, Garcia, Dickey, Dat Dude, etc. as the Braves did - that could've arguably made them pretty serious contenders if they'd have been willing to spend some money on one more rotation piece.
 
Southcack77 said:
I agree that he probably should have been dealt in 2014.

On the other hand, there is a decent chance he is part of a playoff rotation in 2018 or 2019.
Click to expand...

Almost no chance in 18 and very little in 19. Either way, he's not the type of guy you build a rotation on his ability to be the ace. I don't know the point of keeping him.
 
gilesfan said:
Almost no chance in 18 and very little in 19. Either way, he's not the type of guy you build a rotation on his ability to be the ace. I don't know the point of keeping him.
Click to expand...

Lot better than no chance next season. Pretty decent chance in 19.

you also have argued against something no one has said: that Teheran is an Ace.

They probably should have traded him like they traded Wood. Preferable for something much better. But no sense in trading him now.
 
Southcack77 said:
Lot better than no chance next season. Pretty decent chance in 19.

you also have argued against something no one has said: that Teheran is an Ace.

They probably should have traded him like they traded Wood. Preferable for something much better. But no sense in trading him now.
Click to expand...

Are you guys gonna just keep pushing it back a year? I remember how the Braves were gonna compete last year, then this year, now next year......... That is part of the issue with the rebuild is making deals that make sense if you are competitive.
 
gilesfan said:
Are you guys gonna just keep pushing it back a year? I remember how the Braves were gonna compete last year, then this year, now next year......... That is part of the issue with the rebuild is making deals that make sense if you are competitive.
Click to expand...

I've never said the Braves would compete in 2017.

I'm on record as saying their championship window won't really open until they are out from under Kemp. But playoffs? Sure. They could do that in the next two years.
 
It's interesting to consider just how much value the Braves gave up in their foolish attempt to be "palatable" in 2015-2016, and contenders by 2017...

1. They definitely would still have Wood and Peraza.
2. They definitely wouldn't have Matt Kemp's corpse running around LF earning $20M per year for 2.5 more seasons.
3. They would almost certainly have control over Swanson's age 29 season.
4. They would probably have 2-3 more Top 100 guys after trading Teheran.
5. They would likely have 1-2 more Top 100 guys from the Kimbrel trade.
6. They would likely have been in position to draft Senzel, who is currently a Top 15-20 guy and almost ready to step in at 3B.

That's a hell of a lot of value to give up to lose 94 games instead of 100+ for 2 seasons, and to be flirting with .500 in 2017.

I'm sure the pozzies still think it was a wise process though.
 
nsacpi said:
The one that really gave it away was taking on the Swisher and Bourn contracts which expired in 2016 in exchange for the Indians taking on Chris Johnson, whose contract runs out after 2017.
Click to expand...

I like the Johnson for Bourn/Swisher deal regardless of what they were trying to do. I actually think that was a fairly unambiguously good move. They took on more money in the early days of the rebuild to have a salary flexibility in 2017. Didn't really give up anything.

I don't think there is any sort of hard pill to swallow in that one the way that some people have trouble with Kimbrell/Upton.

I have to say the Oliveira deal was a true failure in that they got the scouting so badly wrong and they also took on pretty significant long term salary. One upside of the Kemp deal is that it at least cleared the 2020 obligation to HO off the books. If Coppy can manage to move Kemp with the Braves paying less than they owed HO in 2018 or 2019 it would be a relatively decent payroll coup, I guess. I would fully support a deal sending Kemp and the Dodgers' contribution for Kemp and 6 million to whoever would take him for a bag of boiled peanuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top