Quintana
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Quintana
If we didn't move Glasnow then certainly both Meadows and Keller, right? White Sox aren't messing around in these deals.
Quintana
784A46465260434A47424D4A2B0 wrote: If we didn't move Glasnow then certainly both Meadows and Keller, right? White Sox aren't messing around in these deals.
Perhaps, but then I wouldn't trade Newman. It wouldn't be surprising if Meadows was rated higher than Giolito when the new rankings come out. There were already rumors that Giolito was going to be below Robles. According to the current rankings, Newman and Lopez were in the same area. My original suggestion of Meadows, Newman, and Garcia was a trade similar to the one they got for Eaton. I would be alright with Meadows, Keller, and Garcia. May swap out Garcia for a position player. Someone like Wily Garcia or Alen Hanson.
Perhaps, but then I wouldn't trade Newman. It wouldn't be surprising if Meadows was rated higher than Giolito when the new rankings come out. There were already rumors that Giolito was going to be below Robles. According to the current rankings, Newman and Lopez were in the same area. My original suggestion of Meadows, Newman, and Garcia was a trade similar to the one they got for Eaton. I would be alright with Meadows, Keller, and Garcia. May swap out Garcia for a position player. Someone like Wily Garcia or Alen Hanson.
-
Roberto218
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:55 pm
Quintana
Four years of control of Quintana at: 2017- 6 million; 2018- $8.8 million; Options for 2019 and 2010 at $10.5 million with a buyout at $ 1 million for each year. I might give up Glasnow and another top 10 prospect, plus a lesser prospect but not Keller or Meadows. Glasnow command issues might take 2-3 years to sort out and you might only have 3-4 years of good pitching under control. 4 years of Quintana with an average WAR of 4 seems like a good guess for his projection.
Quintana
1528252235332875767F470 wrote: Four years of control of Quintana at: 2017- 6 million; 2018- $8.8 million; Options for 2019 and 2010 at $10.5 million with a buyout at $ 1 million for each year. I might give up Glasnow and another top 10 prospect, plus a lesser prospect but not Keller or Meadows. Glasnow command issues might take 2-3 years to sort out and you might only have 3-4 years of good pitching under control. 4 years of Quintana with an average WAR of 4 seems like a good guess for his projection.
That's a solid line of thinking. I think Glasnow can be really productive right now. His command issues have been the same all through the minors. They haven't kept him from being dominant. There has been an adjustment period at each level. I think we will know a lot more about him by midseason. I just think now is the complete wrong time to trade him. His value is too low. By the end of next year, he could have the value of a DeGrom or Syndergaard.
That's a solid line of thinking. I think Glasnow can be really productive right now. His command issues have been the same all through the minors. They haven't kept him from being dominant. There has been an adjustment period at each level. I think we will know a lot more about him by midseason. I just think now is the complete wrong time to trade him. His value is too low. By the end of next year, he could have the value of a DeGrom or Syndergaard.
Quintana
212A222E2B2A317472053C242D2A2A6B262A450 wrote: Meadows would be tough to lose. He is in line to replace the team's super star.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
Quintana
0934393E292F34696A635B0 wrote: Four years of control of Quintana at: 2017- 6 million; 2018- $8.8 million; Options for 2019 and 2010 at $10.5 million with a buyout at $ 1 million for each year. I might give up Glasnow and another top 10 prospect, plus a lesser prospect but not Keller or Meadows. Glasnow command issues might take 2-3 years to sort out and you might only have 3-4 years of good pitching under control. 4 years of Quintana with an average WAR of 4 seems like a good guess for his projection.
If you take a look at what Chicago has landed in the Sale and the Eaton deals, this one won't be Glasnow and another top 10 guy that isn't highly thought of. It would be another significant piece, like a Meadows. Chicago knows we are very very desperate and will use that to get everything possible.
If you take a look at what Chicago has landed in the Sale and the Eaton deals, this one won't be Glasnow and another top 10 guy that isn't highly thought of. It would be another significant piece, like a Meadows. Chicago knows we are very very desperate and will use that to get everything possible.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Quintana
3222231402020E610 wrote: Meadows would be tough to lose. He is in line to replace the team's super star.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
We have some role player type guys coming but not so many difference makers. Yes, pitching is our system weakness not the depth. Which is why it's so infuriating we keep on unloading starters (flawed though most of them might be) for nothing. Not to keep rehashing but healthy Charlie Morton would have made our staff better last year, which says quite a bit about pitching depth.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
We have some role player type guys coming but not so many difference makers. Yes, pitching is our system weakness not the depth. Which is why it's so infuriating we keep on unloading starters (flawed though most of them might be) for nothing. Not to keep rehashing but healthy Charlie Morton would have made our staff better last year, which says quite a bit about pitching depth.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Quintana
7969685F4949452A0 wrote: Meadows would be tough to lose. He is in line to replace the team's super star.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
I have given you a list of pitchers before. You simply don't agree.
They would be dealing because the pitchers aren't ready yet. Just because they aren't ready now doesn't mean they can't be quality starters in the majors down the road. People are so caught up in rotation slotting. I am not.
Why can't guys in Double A be considered prospects or depth? Was Cole, Taillon, and Glasnow not prospects or depth when they were in Altoona?
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
I have given you a list of pitchers before. You simply don't agree.
They would be dealing because the pitchers aren't ready yet. Just because they aren't ready now doesn't mean they can't be quality starters in the majors down the road. People are so caught up in rotation slotting. I am not.
Why can't guys in Double A be considered prospects or depth? Was Cole, Taillon, and Glasnow not prospects or depth when they were in Altoona?
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Quintana
7378707C7978632620576E767F7878397478170 wrote: Meadows would be tough to lose. He is in line to replace the team's super star.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
I have given you a list of pitchers before. You simply don't agree.
They would be dealing because the pitchers aren't ready yet. Just because they aren't ready now doesn't mean they can't be quality starters in the majors down the road. People are so caught up in rotation slotting. I am not.
Why can't guys in Double A be considered prospects or depth? Was Cole, Taillon, and Glasnow not prospects or depth when they were in Altoona?
A matter of definitions here. A lot of people, when talking about "depth," are talking about guys that can readily be brought into the major league fold if there are issues like injury or craptastic performance, or having only three guys to fill a five man rotation.
Glasnow would be a big loss too, but easier to deal with since the team has pitching depth.
What pitching depth does Pittsburgh truly have. Be honest with yourself and not use the company line. Don't throw in prospects in AA that look good in AA and might not see the light in anything past AA. We would be dealing for him because we don't have pitching depth.
I have given you a list of pitchers before. You simply don't agree.
They would be dealing because the pitchers aren't ready yet. Just because they aren't ready now doesn't mean they can't be quality starters in the majors down the road. People are so caught up in rotation slotting. I am not.
Why can't guys in Double A be considered prospects or depth? Was Cole, Taillon, and Glasnow not prospects or depth when they were in Altoona?
A matter of definitions here. A lot of people, when talking about "depth," are talking about guys that can readily be brought into the major league fold if there are issues like injury or craptastic performance, or having only three guys to fill a five man rotation.