4542545C5245020E77505A565E5B1954585A370 wrote: The Cubs were very good last year. They didn't make any moves to improve on last year, in my opinion. They will still be very good, but they lost some key guys and replaced them with worse players.
Losing Chapman, Fowler, and Ross could be big blows. Hammel, Woods, and some bench guys not returning didn't help either.
They will still be very good. I am not sure they will be 2016 good.
Just as we expect Cutch to bounce back, the Cubs expect Heyward to rebound. They also get Schwarber back. That will help compensate for losing some players. I don't think the Pirates can make up the 25 game gap between the 2 teams last year.
And I don't think any pitcher (given 33 starts) gets us 25 games closer than what we already have either. If we would happen to be close to the division it's because something catastophic happens on the Chicago side of things.
How about if the number was 13 games instead of 25? Last year the Pirates beat the Cubs 2 times. This year, if the Pirates could simply win 8 against the Cubs they would make up 12 games. Or, if the Pirates were to do something extraordinary and win 13 against the Cubs the Pirates are within a game.
That's how I look at the race - what do the Pirates have to do to beat the Cubs? If they can win 2 out of 3 they are their. Instead of saying "can;t happen" I like to think "how can it happen?" Pitching....
I will say this. I do think the Cubs will be worse than last year. Here's why. I REALLY thought trading Soler for Wade Davis was dumb. Soler is a good ball player. Losing him and Fowler will be bigger than people believe. I also think they are going to have a thinner rotation than in years past. Lackey has to start showing his age at some point, right? I think Hendricks is good, but as good as last year? Probably not. Lester is also starting to get up there in years. Arrieta was mortal last year. And, they had a remarkable year health wise, much like we did in 2015.
Why did the Pirates win 98 games in 2015? I'd argue that, in large part, it was because Cole, Burnett, Liriano, and even Locke took the ball every fifth day. The Cubs stayed healthy last year. If a starting pitcher misses significant time with an injury, they might be thinner than we are in terms of depth. All of those guys threw a lot of innings last year, especially when you take the postseason into account.
Wade Davis hasn't been very good this spring.
Their lineup will rake. No doubt. Schwarber returns and will offer more than what they lost in Soler. Even if their pitching falters they are running an all star team out there every day.
But, I do think they're beatable. And yes, we need to do much of that ourselves. Last year we were 4-14-1 against them, IIRC. If we can flip that to a respectable 9-10 even, right off the bat, you've made up 9 of the 25 games. 16 games is still a lot, but if we flipped it all the way around and went 15-4 against them, suddenly, we're only four games back of them.
I don't think that's realistic, but it illustrates that the Pirates were a good team last year against everyone not named the Chicago Cubs. They actually went 74-69 against the rest of baseball. That's a .517 clip, which would be about 84 wins on the year. That's how bad we were against the Cubs.
Grade the Pirates off season
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Grade the Pirates off season
If Cutch and Cole are bad again, our offseason doesn't matter.
-
Bobster21
Grade the Pirates off season
7B7370475174535C320 wrote:
I don't think that's realistic, but it illustrates that the Pirates were a good team last year against everyone not named the Chicago Cubs. They actually went 74-69 against the rest of baseball. That's a .517 clip, which would be about 84 wins on the year. That's how bad we were against the Cubs.
That's true but it's a .517 clip compared to all the other teams whose records against the Cubs are still being factored in.
But to follow up on this idea, if we look at the Cubs' record vs everyone except the Pirates they were 89-54 which is a .622 pct. So, absent the Pirates, the Cubs lost 38% of their games. Had they lost the same 38% of 18 games against the Pirates, that would have been 7 losses to the Pirates (rather than the actual 4). It would have made the Pirates' record 81-80 instead of the actual 78-83. Nothing to write home about but probably more like what that team actually looked like.
It's nice to think that if the Bucs had split with the Cubs' the record would have been 83-78. Still just a little over .500. But it's significant to consider that the Cubs had winning records against 16 of their 20 opponents. The other 4 opponents were teams they didn't play many games against (Braves 3-3, White Sox 2-2, Rockies 2-4, Mets 2-5). No team that played the Cubs more than 6-7 times managed even a split of those games. So it's hard to say the Pirates should/could have split those games.
Conceding that the Bucs were simply no match for the Cubs, the other problem was 1-6 vs Miami and combining for a 15-23 records vs St.L, Wash, Tex, Angels, Hous, Det with losing records to each and 8-8 vs SD, NYM and Sea by going .500 vs each. They had winning records vs Az, Atl, Cin, Col, Dodgers, Milw, Oak, Phil, SF for a combined 50-32.
To summarize, they were 50-32 against team they had winning records against, 4-14 vs Cubs, 16-29 vs the other teams they had losing records against, and 8-8 vs teams they were .500 against. So I would conclude that even had they managed to win a couple more games vs the Cubs they were still no better than a .500 team.
I don't think that's realistic, but it illustrates that the Pirates were a good team last year against everyone not named the Chicago Cubs. They actually went 74-69 against the rest of baseball. That's a .517 clip, which would be about 84 wins on the year. That's how bad we were against the Cubs.
That's true but it's a .517 clip compared to all the other teams whose records against the Cubs are still being factored in.
But to follow up on this idea, if we look at the Cubs' record vs everyone except the Pirates they were 89-54 which is a .622 pct. So, absent the Pirates, the Cubs lost 38% of their games. Had they lost the same 38% of 18 games against the Pirates, that would have been 7 losses to the Pirates (rather than the actual 4). It would have made the Pirates' record 81-80 instead of the actual 78-83. Nothing to write home about but probably more like what that team actually looked like.
It's nice to think that if the Bucs had split with the Cubs' the record would have been 83-78. Still just a little over .500. But it's significant to consider that the Cubs had winning records against 16 of their 20 opponents. The other 4 opponents were teams they didn't play many games against (Braves 3-3, White Sox 2-2, Rockies 2-4, Mets 2-5). No team that played the Cubs more than 6-7 times managed even a split of those games. So it's hard to say the Pirates should/could have split those games.
Conceding that the Bucs were simply no match for the Cubs, the other problem was 1-6 vs Miami and combining for a 15-23 records vs St.L, Wash, Tex, Angels, Hous, Det with losing records to each and 8-8 vs SD, NYM and Sea by going .500 vs each. They had winning records vs Az, Atl, Cin, Col, Dodgers, Milw, Oak, Phil, SF for a combined 50-32.
To summarize, they were 50-32 against team they had winning records against, 4-14 vs Cubs, 16-29 vs the other teams they had losing records against, and 8-8 vs teams they were .500 against. So I would conclude that even had they managed to win a couple more games vs the Cubs they were still no better than a .500 team.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Grade the Pirates off season
755855444352450506370 wrote:
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Grade the Pirates off season
2A2D3B333D2A6D61183F35393134763B3735580 wrote:
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point. I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year. If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs.
I certainly understand the other way of thinking though. I think it would be great to get him. I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point. I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year. If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs.
I certainly understand the other way of thinking though. I think it would be great to get him. I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Grade the Pirates off season
I believe the Glasnow hype. I am willing to move him because of Keller. Why I wouldn't move both of them.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Grade the Pirates off season
Yeah Q for Glasnow straight up is a different story. The Sox wouldn't do that though.
-
Bobster21
Grade the Pirates off season
05373B3B2F1D3E373A3F3037560 wrote:
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point. I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year. If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs.
I certainly understand the other way of thinking though. I think it would be great to get him. I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point. I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year. If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs.
I certainly understand the other way of thinking though. I think it would be great to get him. I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Grade the Pirates off season
I agree with Glasnow being the deciding factor - if he's on the verge of dominating I'd rather have his years plus Bell and Keller.
For the life of me I don't see how he manages the big leagues' running game or the big league bats that aren't missing the 2nd time through the lineup. I hope I'm dead wrong.
For the life of me I don't see how he manages the big leagues' running game or the big league bats that aren't missing the 2nd time through the lineup. I hope I'm dead wrong.
Grade the Pirates off season
654845545342551516270 wrote:
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point. I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year. If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs.
I certainly understand the other way of thinking though. I think it would be great to get him. I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.
This is true. Every good player was a prospect at one point in time. Some guys live up to their predictions. Some guys fall short. Some guys go way above and beyond who they were anticipated to be in the minors. It's faulty logic to say, "He's just a prospect! He hasn't done/proven anything yet!" That's the point...yet. You might be trading away the next Mike Trout, or the next Alen Hanson. You just don't know. However, with advanced analytics, computers, and cameras watching every swing, every ground ball, every throw, I think it's getting easier and easier to predict who will become a star and who will flop. As much as I would love to have Quintana, I would hate to trade Glasnow and see him win two or three Cy Youngs in a White Sox uniform.
Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough.
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.
BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml
Thinking about trade philosophy -
I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect. But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present.
Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?
The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?
I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year. The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff. With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff.
A long shot, but a chance. There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.
I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point. I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year. If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs.
I certainly understand the other way of thinking though. I think it would be great to get him. I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.
This is true. Every good player was a prospect at one point in time. Some guys live up to their predictions. Some guys fall short. Some guys go way above and beyond who they were anticipated to be in the minors. It's faulty logic to say, "He's just a prospect! He hasn't done/proven anything yet!" That's the point...yet. You might be trading away the next Mike Trout, or the next Alen Hanson. You just don't know. However, with advanced analytics, computers, and cameras watching every swing, every ground ball, every throw, I think it's getting easier and easier to predict who will become a star and who will flop. As much as I would love to have Quintana, I would hate to trade Glasnow and see him win two or three Cy Youngs in a White Sox uniform.