Jake

I like to imagine that Abreu was absolutely laying into the front office and Russo is just translating it into the company line.

Is Luis Robert not able to even visit the US to see the doctor without losing his tax benefit?

Kopech hasn't had a start with fewer than 2 BB. Looking like he'll beat that unless he has a rotten 8th inning (at 85 pitches, I suppose he'll go into the 8th).

As we eventually learned with Johnson, he had a bum arm. When I pitched in college, I know I would do well in fits and starts (while my stuff seemed to have regressed) before we realized there was a pretty substantial labrum tear that wasn't really showing on MRIs.

I'm not a huge fan of trading a guy like this who you have for 5 more seasons at little cost. You'd be extremely lucky to get someone as useful as he is in return.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 09:36 PM) I get that point but not throwing strikes in AAA is the same as not throwing strikes in A or AA. I still think the Sox called him up last year to show him that something he thought he was doing well would never work against MLB batters. I disagree with the bolded. It's true that if you can't throw strikes at all, it doesn't matter where you pitch. But if your command is marginal, it really matters what the level of competition is. Think about how many guys we've seen with good command in AAA get called up to MLB and suddenly struggle with walks. So what I would say is that his command issues in AAA *might* be a sign that he is simply incapable of strike-throwing, but it might also be a sign that he's not ready for the level or there's something else going on. QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 09:41 PM) All you have to do is see the stuff he's throwing and it's pretty evident he's a long shot to perform well in the majors. His stuff has declined too much to make up for his mediocre command. Stephens had the injury issue, but unlike Fulmer, at least he's consistently getting AA hitters out I've had limited ability to see him in AAA this year. I know that I've seen Carson Fulmer pitch with stuff that was plenty good enough to be a good MLB starter. I generally don't assume that if the stuff declines in a 23 year old without a known injury, that this is a permanent change. It's concerning, and maybe indicative of an injury, but when I think about Carson Fulmer I assume that at least with the right coaching and training, he has access to the good stuff we've all seen before. When prospects regress, I want to know why. There's a chance that there was no regression; the player was always bad and his previous stats were lying to us. So looking at Fulmer, I have to ask, were his stats lying to us? In 2016, he started off terribly. He pitched 46 innings over his first 10 starts, with a BB/9 and K/9 each about 7.00 to go with 6 homers allowed and a near 6.00 ERA. He threw strikes about 57% of the time. Bad! Preceding his callup to the majors, he improved. In 41 IP over 7 starts, he had a 3.51 ERA, 11.8 K/9, and 3.7 BB/9. He allowed 1 homer in that time and threw 64% strikes. I think it's fair to say that this good run of pitching was probably not a fluke, especially considering the high K rate. Then he gets called up to the majors and I don't think we need to retread that ground. In his first start in AAA, he went down and got shelled in a 1 inning start. After that, combining his 3 final starts of last season and his first 7 of this season, he pitched fairly well: 54.2 IP, 2.14 ERA, 2.5 BB/9, 7.7 K/9, allowing 6 HR and throwing 63% strikes. It's not exactly Cy Young level pitching, but it was good and made it look like he was on track to be a MLB pitcher again. I don't think it's a flukey 10 starts. Now, he's on a 12 start stretch that has been rotten. 55 IP, 7.36 ERA, 5.9 BB/9, 5.4 K/9, 9 homers and 57% strike rate. Just like his rotten stretch when he started off in AA last year. I admittedly don't break down every pitcher with shoddy season numbers this way, but I just don't get the feeling that most pitchers combine streaks of consistent good pitching with streaks of consistent horrible pitching. It makes me think there's a real ability for Carson Fulmer to pitch like the good version of himself if the White Sox can figure why Mr. Hyde keeps coming out. What I do suspect, though, is that these peaks and valleys wouldn't be nearly so striking if he'd been given the developmental pace of someone like Alec Hansen.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 08:29 PM) To me, he's done nothing besides being drafted high to deserve a top 20 spot in the org rankings. Give me Stephens, Guerrero and Adams over him Sounds like if Fulmer had spent all of 2016 in A+ and started this year in AA, you'd love him. I don't see how these guys repeating AA or in Stephen's case reaching AA at 24 years old is supposed to be some conclusive proof that Fulmer is an inferior prospect. It's fairly logical to think if we slow-walked Fulmer's development, he'd have a fan club following his AA debut this year with interest. I've been wondering if he might be hurt since about mid-May this eyar, but what seems most clear is the Sox are paying the price for pushing his development timeline harder than was reasonable.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 08:33 AM) I think they want him to learn to play at this level now, so that he is fairly developed when the next wave of kids come up in a 18 months or so... "waves of talent" And his service clock is such that the Sox don't get to keep him any longer even if they waited until early next year to call him up. As long as you're confident that he won't be so overwhelmed up here that it will hurt his development, it's better to get him up here against the best competition and presumably with the best coaches.

There are two separate questions re: Rutherford. One is how good is he, what will he turn into, is he over/underrated, that basic thing. The other is what his market value likely was. His market value is sufficiently high that it's quite incredible that we got him in a deal that centered on Tommy Kahnle. You might disagree about what the market thinks, that's question one. But based on extracting market value from his pieces, Hahn did fairly well here.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:17 AM) No, he's always flirted with 100. He started throwing strikes. FanGraphs article yesterday included a chart showing a constant increase in velocity from his first MLB appearance in 2014 up to now.

There are some horrendous takes in here. I think the value proposition is simple. If you took out the relievers, you're looking at Frazier for Clarkin straight up. I would guess Yanks weren't eager to give up Clarkin for Frazier but might have been convinced if they were really high on getting Todd. Then it's Kahnle for Rutherford. But Kahnle for Rutherford is highway robbery for the Sox. Kahnle was worth something good, but Rutherford is a really good prospect. Would you trade Reynaldo Lopez for Kahnle? Giolito? Hansen? I know I wouldn't unless I was desperate for a reliever right away. So to sweeten the deal, we add Robertson. But we rightly said Robertson tipped the scales too far in the other direction, though the money piece lessens Robo's value even if it's not a bad deal. So we get them to throw in Tito Polo, who has a little upside and is almost certain to reach the majors and could be a nice roleplayer with upside as a starting CFer. I also have the sense that Yankees wouldn't have done any of these deals in isolation. The Frazier for Clarkin piece, in particular, I bet they only did because it allowed them to get Kahnle.

QUOTE (Real @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 02:12 AM) I never understood why players who split awfully on the other side of the plate still choose to continue switch hitting. He has a .760 OPS against lefties this year. In 2015, he hit lefties better than he hit righties. He's not one of those guys who is wasting his time as a switch hitter.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 12:27 AM) Yep it's quite exciting. I'm still intrigued at the Stanton/Yellich idea if it's only money and minimal prospects in return That would hurt our draft position

If you think about it from the Yankees perspective, it's all about Kahnle. If Kahnle goes back to being a marginal major leaguer, this would be an unforgivably bad trade for the Yanks. Whether Rutherford pans out is less important because we know that his value is high enough to bring in a Sonny Gray type of player.

There is a very real chance that in 3-5 years, this will be a trade that Yankees fans bring up in every single conversation about Cashman's f*** ups

Someone in the presser (before Hahn has arrived) said in the background "Tito Polo's in the trade?"

The "Todd and Melky" thread got locked and consolidated in the Frazier trade mega-thread. I haven't heard any rumors, but they will come. With that said, given how little the Tigers got for JD Martinez, it looks like it will be hard for the Sox to move Melky.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:22 PM) They clearly wanted Rutherford if that's all they're getting. Hope he pans out. That said, it's not a terrible deal if you break it down as: DRob for Rutherford Kahnle for Clarkin Frazier for Polo + salary relief (Clippard) My first thought is I want more for Kahnle. Andujar + Clarkin on that line makes this a win for the White Sox. I'd say it's Frazier for Clarkin. Rutherford was too much of a return for Kahnle, so we give them Robertson but then that's too much going to them so we get some third player.

Well I am a fan of Tito Polo's name

Not holding a lot of hope for this last player

Won't be in this deal, but I hope Sox are open to getting young MLBers who haven't put things together yet in deals. Imagine how little someone would have had to offer to get Avi Garcia in a deal this winter. We should look to get some guys like that coming to us, though Avi's short-ish time to free agency makes him not the world's best example.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:53 PM) Where do you get this crap from? Theo all but said the Cubs were going to try to lose and they did. A lot. Maybe read a little more before saying a team that won 61 games in one season was trying to win? I've given you all the evidence and reasoning that I can. I'm trying to make a distinction between a team like the Sox or Cubs that decides it will prioritize building up its minor leagues over its MLB team (this will always make you lose as a side effect) and the idea that you should make a concerted effort to lose as many games as possible regardless of whether that effort improves your organization. The Cubs would have waited longer to call up Rizzo if they wanted to lose more. They wouldn't have thrown a bunch of money at Edwin Jackson (as it turns out, that helped the losing! oops!). But they let the wins happen because they knew the rebuilding process would keep their draft position in a high-value place regardless. What I think is stupid is the idea of intentionally slow-walking player development, refusing to use the bullpen in a smart way, or dumping decent MLB performers for no return in hopes of generating extra losses. Or, as a general rule, rooting against your team. They'll lose enough without anyone trying to make it happen if you're trading away every veteran who isn't nailed down.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:50 PM) That's a very long winded way of saying you don't understand tanking and the benefits of the highest possible draft pick. That's okay, you aren't alone. No, I do understand. Look at the Cubs World Series roster and tell me about all the good players they got due to their (not even all that high) draft position. It won't take long because it's pretty much just 1 guy. Their rebuild was successful largely due to the trades, not their draft position. I hope the White Sox pursue it the same way because the draft position ain't worth that much when you know it's going to be a good one either way.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:45 PM) Should have changed it to green to show sarcasm. He's using 2014 and 2015 picks as comparison, but they were trying to compete then. If he can use data that makes no sense, I will as well The point was the Cubs were picking from positions that aren't so different from hapless teams like the Sox that were trying to win. That is, the Cubs clearly were not all that dedicated to losing for losing's sake.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:42 PM) Are you suggesting the Astros haven't benefited from tanking? I'm saying they may have squandered fan interest and player development in the service of trying to save the owner money. They were in a rather different position to both Cubs and Sox though because they never really had a big moment where they started trading good veterans to get prospects like Cubs and Sox were able to do to kickstart things. To be clear, my argument wasn't that you go for it every year, but that the reason rebuilding works has little to do with draft position. It's that you stockpile your system by trading veterans and prioritizing the development of your minor leaguers. You will lose and get good draft picks because of that, but there are real benefits to squeezing out a few more wins with the MLB club when it comes to giving the people who watch the games on TV and in the ballpark something worth seeing. From a development standpoint, I think it helps the players to win whenever they can—I also think some pitchers benefit psychologically from not seeing their leads pissed away by awful bullpens. I'm of the opinion that the benefits of winning a little bit more are usually better than picking 2th instead of 5th or whatever.