OnlyBucs

373C34383D3C276264132A323B3C3C7D303C530 wrote: I am starting to believe that Meadows is the asking piece holding a deal up.  It also makes me wonder how good Glasnow is if he can't be the center piece in this trade.  Of course, assuming Glasnow is in the talks. 



Where do Meadows and Glasnow rank compared to Moncada and Kopach (two main guys in the Sale trade).


I've see it written that Meadows is the number 2 of prospect in baseball behind Benintendi

I've seen Glasnow at 2nd or 3rd pitching prospects (with Giolito and Reyes) ahead of him.



I think the Bucs don't want to give up Meadows and the White Sox want them to and it's almost that simple.

0F322C212E242F0D2532232524400 wrote: I would consider Meadows untouchable.  He's going to be a guy you can pencil into the three spot for half a decade.
I guess that's why I'm not a GM. LOL. I would trade Meadows now for Qunitana without thinking twice. I understand what Meadows could be, but I know what I've got in Quintana. A #2 starter at a very good cost that is young and durable.

6B6A7160763631050 wrote: I would consider Meadows untouchable.  He's going to be a guy you can pencil into the three spot for half a decade.
I guess that's why I'm not a GM. LOL. I would trade Meadows now for Qunitana without thinking twice. I understand what Meadows could be, but I know what I've got in Quintana. A #2 starter at a very good cost that is young and durable.


Prospect worshipers will never be reasoned with.  It's not you, it's them.   There is always the "next #3 hitter penciled in for the better part of a decade" waiting at some level of the minors. 



The reason why that's Meadows and Meadows is the reason why the deal is being held up is because the deal isn't and never was going to happen...It's pre-excusing what we all know and KNEW wasn't going to happen from the moment the deal was mentioned



We don't trade for established high quality starting pitching.  Has never happened. We "show interest" then don't make the trade citing prospect cost. Rinsed and repeated every single year..

I read yesterday after all the arbatration cases were announced that the payroll to start 2017 will be over 100M. Unless the team moves Watson, Cutch or Harrison. If they were to trade prospects for Quintana the payroll would be somewhere around 115M. There fore it this trade ever does happen I think there has to be some salary shaving done!

28212938364C0 wrote:



Prospect worshipers will never be reasoned with.  It's not you, it's them.   There is always the "next #3 hitter penciled in for the better part of a decade" waiting at some level of the minors. 



..


Or in this case, it's every team wanting to trade for this guy. Is Brian Cashman a "prospect worshiper" working on behalf of making excuses for the Pirates for some reason?

60525E5E4A785B525F5A5552330 wrote:



Prospect worshipers will never be reasoned with.  It's not you, it's them.   There is always the "next #3 hitter penciled in for the better part of a decade" waiting at some level of the minors. 



..


Or in this case, it's every team wanting to trade for this guy.  Is Brian Cashman a "prospect worshiper" working on behalf of making excuses for the Pirates for some reason?


Just give me an example of us trading prospects for an established starting pitcher. We've had five years where we were competitors at the deadline or on opening day. We've "shown interest" in a boatload of starting pitchers.



Which one did we trade for?

5B525A4B453F0 wrote:



Prospect worshipers will never be reasoned with.  It's not you, it's them.   There is always the "next #3 hitter penciled in for the better part of a decade" waiting at some level of the minors. 



..


Or in this case, it's every team wanting to trade for this guy.  Is Brian Cashman a "prospect worshiper" working on behalf of making excuses for the Pirates for some reason?


Just give me an example of us trading prospects for an established starting pitcher.   We've had five years where we were competitors at the deadline or on opening day.   We've "shown interest" in a boatload of starting pitchers.      



Which one did we trade for?


Drew Hutchison....

665147474B5715171517240 wrote:



Prospect worshipers will never be reasoned with.  It's not you, it's them.   There is always the "next #3 hitter penciled in for the better part of a decade" waiting at some level of the minors. 



..


Or in this case, it's every team wanting to trade for this guy.  Is Brian Cashman a "prospect worshiper" working on behalf of making excuses for the Pirates for some reason?


Just give me an example of us trading prospects for an established starting pitcher.   We've had five years where we were competitors at the deadline or on opening day.   We've "shown interest" in a boatload of starting pitchers.      



Which one did we trade for?


Drew Hutchison.... 




;D

707971606E140 wrote:



Prospect worshipers will never be reasoned with.  It's not you, it's them.   There is always the "next #3 hitter penciled in for the better part of a decade" waiting at some level of the minors. 



..


Or in this case, it's every team wanting to trade for this guy.  Is Brian Cashman a "prospect worshiper" working on behalf of making excuses for the Pirates for some reason?


Just give me an example of us trading prospects for an established starting pitcher.   We've had five years where we were competitors at the deadline or on opening day.   We've "shown interest" in a boatload of starting pitchers.      



Which one did we trade for?


Wandy.

Yeah, Wandy Rodriguez is an example. Might be the only example, but it is the example. Always amazes me how some people can be so "absolute" on an opinion.



Also, there's a first time for everything. Using the rationale that just because something has never happened it will not ever happen in the future is just foolhardy.