@JonMorosi: José Quintana trade talks continue, sources say, with #Astros among the most serious suitors. @MLB @MLBNetwork
That's not a stretch of a prediction. It's pretty clear who the risk averse posters are who would never commit serious prospects in any sort of deal whatsoever. If the leaked offer to Tampa bay was anywhere close to accurate, that shows the front office recognizes the biggest weakness on this team (too many questions regarding health and possible performance from the starting rotation). I feel pretty certain the Astros helped facilitate that leak in order to let the white Sox know that some of the key pieces they covet could go elsewhere, if the deal is right.
I think you overestimate how planned leaks are to the media. In general, they are just people seeking attention and wanting to be an inside source for reporters. I don't think they are nearly as strategic as we'd think. Even in the case of a super-tight front office like the Astros, there are just too many people who need to know things to really keep a lid on anything significant.
I'd prefer to legitimize them, as opposed to them being simply lies. Truth likely in the middle. Most leaks done by agents with an agenda. When it's trade rumors, all bets are off as to their authenticity.
This article is interesting. First, it is written by Phil Rogers, a former Chicago tribune writer who presumably has contacts with the Sox. Second, it emphasizes the Sox desire for MLB level talent and talk about Musgrove and Bregman, suggesting that Musgrove is available. Then he talks about Martes and questions whether the Astros would include Tucker. Perhaps reading too much into this but if this is coming from the Sox, they're pushing for pieces we want to keep.
It also says they are less interested in Martes and Paulino because they want bats rather than pitching. That seems like a plus for us since we have so many key hitters in place and a lot more uncertainty with current and future pitching.
Probably just as likely that the Sox are planting the story about the Astros in order to get another team (Pirates, Yankees, Rangers) to step up their offer. I do think Chicago will trade Quintana this offseason, its just impossible to know where. I'm at the point where if Houston is able to get him without giving up Bregman i will be happy regardless of which prospects they give up.
They can start a trade with the 24-year-old Musgrove, who has pitched with polish in the Minor Leagues and acquitted himself well in 62 Major League innings last year. But they've so far refused to include third baseman Alex Bregman or 20-year-old outfielder Kyle Tucker (although Peter Gammons reported that the Rays turned down a proposal for Archer that included Tucker). Other potential trade pieces for the Astros include Martes and Paulino, but the White Sox seem more interested in adding bats than arms after landing five pitching prospects in the trades that sent Chris Saleand Adam Eaton to the Red Sox and Nationals, respectively. Outfielder Derek Fisher, a 23-year-old from Virginia who reached Triple-A last season, and 24-year-old outfielder Teoscar Hernandez could also fill out a package. The same goes for first baseman A.J. Reed, who tore up Double-A in '15 but struggled when he was hurried to Houston.
Jim Duquette of MLB.com just posted Quintana hypotheticals for several teams, starting with Houston. He (like the rest of the media) assumes Chicago would've accepted Martes/Tucker/Musgrove, and that Houston balked. My assumption is that Tucker was the deal breaker for Houston, and my thinking is that Chicago may be inclined to accept a Tuckerless deal sometime over the next 60 days so long as Houston adds sufficient value via quantity to get close or exceed Tuckers value, and no other team (Yanks, Pirates, Rangers, etc.) steps up to offer a package on par with Martes/Tucker/Musgrove. So a couple of questions for discussion: How much would trading Martes and Musgrove hurt Houston? Who else would they have to include to make up for not including Tucker? Both Musgrove and Martes should pitch in the majors in 2017. Musgrove is probably the current favorite for the opening day SP5 slot in Houston, while Martes likely won't be ready until late in the season. In the short term, acquiring Quintana more than makes up for losing Musgrove, and (especially when looking at 2017), adding Quintana likely also greatly diminishes the need for Martes. Of course, the standard risk of a prospect becoming a star with another team applies, especially when discussing pitching, and both Martes and Musgrove (although sporting much different styles) have some chance to be elite players. All in all, I'm more than comfortable sending Martes and Musgrove to Chicago to bring back Quintana, and am highly confident that the move would improve the team in the competitive window in a meaningful way. Tucker is a top prospect, currently listed at 50th overall by MLB.com (but will likely make a significant jump in the next iteration, probably somewhere in the 20-40 range), with an overall grade of 55 (again, this could bump up to a 60 in the next update). Houston has 3 other prospects with current 55 grades by MLB.com in David Paulino, Derek Fisher, and Forrest Whitley. Pure speculation, but I think it would take 2 of those 3 plus another lesser prospect (say, Teoscar Hernandez, Daz Cameron, or Miguel Sierra, assuming Houston has Franklin Perez off limits) to get a deal done. So the deal would be Quintana for: RHP Francis Martes (Houston's #1 prospect, grade 55, #29 prospect overall) RHP Joe Musgrove (Houston's #8 prospect in 2015, grade 50, but whose stock has risen considerably since then and also experienced a rather successful MLB debut) RHP David Paulino (Houston's #4 prospect, grade 55, #70 overall) OF Derek Fisher (Houston's #5 prospect, grade 55, #83 overall) IF Miguel Sierra (Houston's #10, grade 50) That's a tremendous amount of talent that would gut most farm systems, but for me it's hard to see that deal having a big time negative effect in Houston, especially in the short or medium term. Each of those players has star potential, but given the state of the big league roster (pretty stacked), none of them projects to be a key cog in any future roster construction. My real fear is that even that haul will not be acceptable for Chicago, and Luhnow will be forced to choose between including an "untouchable" (Tucker, Perez, Whitley, ...Bregmannothappening) or watching a rival acquire the only ToR SP currently on the market.
eh...I still say go with what we've got and make a big trade at the deadline. We might be good enough as is. If the 2015 pitchers show up with this offense, we won't need Quintana.
I find it funny that the people like me willing to gamble on prospects are risk adverse versus those who don't want to take a risk on prospects versus a "known" quantity. Granted, I have no problem dealing serious prospects in a reasonable deal (e.g. something coming from Gammons as reasonable regarding Astros typically is not reasonable).
Wasn't really referring to you... but you basically just outlined the entire structure of being risk averse when it comes to trading prospects. You're bankin on their projected future potential, which could outweigh the known commodity, but certainly doesn't help the team as much now. It's also a safer stance to take as a fan making suggestions because if the prospects fail, you merely chalk it up to "most prospects fail... MLB baseball is hard...etc." Rarely do GM's get criticized for hanging onto prospects, but routinely get blasted when those trades don't work (including Luhnow). However in hindsight, I can look at several examples of small market teams that lost the opportunity to maximize their windows by being risk averse...and while they didn't bottom out as fast as they could have, they're all no closer to winning a title (this includes the current Pirates and past A's and Rays teams). The Royals are one of the rare exceptions of where hanging onto every single prospect could pay off... and even then, they made deadline deals when needed. I would gladly emulate the Phillies model... which did feature trading a crap ton of prospects, and they did eventually bottom out... but could soon be on the cusp again if most of their trade hauls pay off.
How much money would you lay down right now that Kuechel will duplicate his Cy Young year, and LMJ stays healthy. I think they'll need a good amount of both. I'm not sure either is a strong likelihood at this point.
Not a lot. How much money would I bet on Keuchel pitching 200 IP and being a top of the rotation pitcher? A decent amount. I feel very comfortable banking on him.
