GenericUserName

Here is what I don't get right now: people were throwing around trade ideas of packaging Robertson & Kahnle and a third piece for Robles straight up and everyone said that was crazy and we would never do that. Instead we get a lesser prospect and two lotto tickets and suddenly everyone loves it? This whole deal basically revolves around Rutherford now. I feel like the only way we can win this trade is if Rutherford hits his cieling AND Kahnle regresses to an average ML pitcher or one of the lotto tickets becomes a good player or we are able to flip Clippard for something of value.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:30 PM) Clarkin is not nothing. We needed a solid left handed prospect for our system. Maybe not, but he is seemingly made of glass and has gone over 75 innings exactly once. And even when he does pitch it doesn't seem overwhelming. His upside is described as a #4. So combining the inherent prospect risk with the fact thats hes still only in A ball and that he has an extensive injury history. it seems like a ton of risk with a minimal upside for the second piece of this trade. And we have to get him on the 40 man by next year and keep him there for what, 3 years while he develops and can hopefully add innings.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:24 PM) Hahn seemed to feel like Rutherford could stick at CF Yeah, because it seems that they put very little value on defense. Quite literally, of all the fielding prospects we have gotten in the rebuilt, how many have been described as good defenders? Basically zero. How many have been described as needing work or may have to be moved to a different position? Basically all of them.

Normally I don't like to be a downer, but I really dislike this trade. When we have been talking about getting Kieboom or Soto for Robertson and how good Kahnle has become plus he is controllable for three more years, I feel like the only real piece we got was Rutherford. Hell, we had to take on Clippard!!! Rutherford seems like a glorified Jameson Fisher to me and I'm not a fan. Both those guys are rated highly because they are supposed to have natural hitting ability and nice swings, but the results aren't any better than guys with average hitting ability. And that might be fine if they had other skills that could add value, but they don't have speed that can be useful in the majors, are below average defenders, and have week arms. And Hahn saying he could play CF! But Rutherford is supposed to have power right? Except he has 2 home runs this season. If Rutherford wasn't highly rated going into the draft because he crushed guys year younger than him I definitely think he would be outside the top 100. I feel like this is buying high on Rutherford and selling low on Kahnle. Why take this trade two weeks before the deadline?! I hope I'm wrong, but this is the first time I'm down on a prospect, and this is probably our last trade that can add high end talent and I feel like we missed out. ***Deep breath*** Rant over.

QUOTE (Soha @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:25 PM) Nah, you'd never get Rutherford for D Rob. Not even close. I'm pretty down on Rutherford too which is why I think without a good last prospect that this deal is pretty weak. Its honestly the first deal I don't like.

I think we are going to keep Kahnle because so far it seems that Hahn is willing to take risks and keep players if he does not get a return he thinks is suitable and I can't see any team paying for his current production with any regression. It worked out in big ways twice already with Sale traded in the offseason instead of at the previous trade deadline and Q being traded now instead of in the offseason, plus it seems like it will work out with a potential Robertson deal. On the other hand, Nate Jones is done for the year and who knows if any team will be willing to give up anything of substance for him once he's healthy. But either way Hahn has shown he is not risk averse and the difference between the potential payoff and the value we can probably get now is probably large enough that he'll take the chance and hold Kahnle.

1) Moncada - Similar potential to Jimenez but closer to the majors and with good speed 2) Jimenez - Potentially special hit/power combo 3) Kopech - Ace potential and looks more and more like he will be a starter 4) Robert - Huge potential but still hasn't faced higher level competition, so all projection right now 5) Giolito - Not the same can't miss prospect, but seems to have progressed at AAA and should be atleast a quality starter 6) Lopez - Similar to Giolito, but I like Giolito's secondary pitches more 7) Cease - Potentially great fastball/curve combo, but has concerns both about durability (post TJS) and 3rd pitch development, so may be a reliever 8) Dunning - Good three pitch mix and has looked good in A ball, but as a college guy I think AA will be the real test 9) Diaz - You can't teach 100mph, and I trust our ability to develop a flame-throwing reliever more than a toolshed hitter 10) Basabe - Toolshed missing a hit tool that could make all the other tools useless 11) Flete - Old for his level, but has generally had strong OBPs, so if he can be good defensively there might be some potential 12) Rose - Low averaged, power hitting corner infielder who is a lottery ticket with Joey Gallo upside?

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:44 AM) One thing that concerns me now...the press has universally been praising Hahn for his last 3 trades and the returns he's gotten...and I'm thinking Rizzo (who's still probably a little butthurt)...but Rizzo or any GM might be a little leery being "the next GM" to get fleeced by Hahn. Ricky has done a masterful job with this rebuild so far for sure...but I'm almost thinking we're not getting what we want for Robertson unless it's a nice package that includes more than just DRob. I feel like this last trade was different than the first two because hearing people talk about it on the news it seemed like they thought it was a fair trade, not to mention how many Cubs fans think they won the trade, and the common person will probably think it went the Cubs way in a few weeks if they start turning it around. Rizzo might still have his head spinning from that Eaton trade, but I don't think this Quintana trade made it any less likely we will trade with the Nats.

I would not be against it, especially because it seems like no teams are going to be offering good prospects. Like if we could get away with giving up a few of the guys we having bouncing between the majors and AAA and get him I think it would be a good deal. We keep talking about how we're going to have so much open payroll that we can get a good free agent, but how many guys actually want to come to the Sox? Its not like shopping in a store to get a player. If I remember correctly there were reports of several free agents this year taking less money to play where they want, and if its us against the Yankees or Dodgers or Cubs, who do you think they are gonna go to? So why not use that money and some of the less important prospects to get a 4-5 WAR/yr player who has a big contract now, but might be more towards market rate in only a few years.

I'm pretty sure its Acuña. Thats what they had on his jersey for the futures game and one of the announcers pointed out its pronounced a-coon-ya because of the enye.

Tin foil hat time, but maybe Hahn is trying to use the unwritten rule of not overshadowing the all star game to leverage teams by saying we are looking to get this done soon and then putting out all these rumors and telling teams that one team popped and is offering what were asking and that we are going to take it, but are waiting until tomorrow, which gives the other teams time to up their offers.

QUOTE (FT35 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) Something else to think about is the perception the league has of Hahn. In the same way we know of everyone else's needs they are looking to acquire, everyone knows of the players that we "need" to move and will be looking to exploit that by getting them cheap...as they should. I almost look at this and think that with the stakes being low on the season, guys like Frazier or Melky--choosing NOT to trade a guy away for nothing can send a more effective message to the GM's than being willing to heavily discount someone. You want Frazier or Melky for your stretch run, all you have to do is offer something of value or we will keep him--which really only hurts YOU because you've determined him to be an upgrade over what you have and we weren't going to get anything of much value anyway. So we eat one bad contract and miss out on a junk prospect...the message will be more clear to teams in the future--"Hey...when they say they'll just keep someone, they aren't bluffing." We might get more from future trades because of a move we DON'T make. I think the problem with this is that it kind of assumes that there is only one willing buyer and one willing seller in the market for a particular piece (which may be the case if we keep anyone beyond the trade deadline and instead try to do waiver trades). Then doing something like this would probably work and would help maximize the return across all trades, especially when you consider that a guy like Todd or Melky provides intangible benefits, such as mentoring the young guys for the rest of the season, that you do not get value from in a trade. However, assuming there are multiple teams buying and multiple teams selling similar pieces, then this doesn't really make sense to me. In this more likely scenario, the real issue is the relative negotiating strength of the other teams willing to sell. If a team is undecided on whether they will be buyers or sellers, or even if they just stay the same, the team trying to buy will have to pay a premium for the player they are seeking because the potentially selling team would have equal value from the player as the buying team. So, if our player has similar or greater value than the other player, it makes more sense to try to get our player for the same premium they would have to offer the other team or slightly more so that they get a better return for the value given up. In this scenario we may not be able to get the full value for a player, but we would not have to give the player away for nothing. With even more potential buyers, this effect is increased such that we may actually get a return that exceeds the value of the player, and this seems to be backed up by the evidence of deadline deals often resulting in overpayment for players. There is ofcourse the opposite side of the argument, namely that having more sellers will drive down our relative negotiating position and therefore the cost of the players, but with the new wild card rules there seems to be more buyers than sellers every year. That said, with the seemingly over-saturated market for back end starting pitchers, I could see us taking very little for a deal, though that may just be a result of their miniscule value.

I would not be worried about surgery. I have some experience with meniscus injuries and if the plan is just for rest, its probably a pinched meniscus, which calls for resting it for a week and not doing heavy leg excersises for a few weeks. If it was anything more serious they would almost definitely know about it right away. I had a friend tear his meniscus and two hours later he couldn't even bend his leg and was in massive amounts of pain. They said Robert felt soreness the next day, which seems to imply that it wasn't as serious as a tear and probably closer to a pinch, which should have no long term effects.