steveno89 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 02:21 PM) Cmon Nats, make another impulse purchase and live to regret it later! We all do it. They did this to themselves really. Part of having a window of contention means that you have to make difficult choices that likely impact your future ability to compete. When it is your time to win, go all in. I think a deal eventually gets done, and I think Soxtalk will be pleased with the overall return Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credezcrew24 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Robertson's value is at an all-time low. I'd prefer to see the White Sox risk holding him until the deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (credezcrew24 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 03:14 PM) Robertson's value is at an all-time low. I'd prefer to see the White Sox risk holding him until the deadline. Not necessarily Dealing Robertson right now allows us to showcase Nate Jones for a deadline deal, which could be very lucrative if he pitches like he did in 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The list of Mike Rizzo bad trades is pretty short, if there even is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Robertson's value may be lowered but it's still a solid year from a guy who was elite before that. And the injury hampering him was the meniscus which is more of a problem for his post-playing days than it is in the now Edited February 13, 2017 by Jose Paniagua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (credezcrew24 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 03:14 PM) Robertson's value is at an all-time low. I'd prefer to see the White Sox risk holding him until the deadline. Is Nate Jones part of the future for the White Sox or would closing games enhance his value vs. being a premier setup man? Is there a legitimate difference between the two roles if he's dominant in one? Would moving Robertson enhance the value of Nate Jones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (spiderman @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 03:35 PM) Is Nate Jones part of the future for the White Sox or would closing games enhance his value vs. being a premier setup man? Is there a legitimate difference between the two roles if he's dominant in one? Would moving Robertson enhance the value of Nate Jones? Unless Jones is someone who can't close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Two different trades died at the ownership approval level (other team's) according to Hahn. Have to guess it was Q and Robertson http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/02/whit...p;post-id=85363 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:06 PM) Two different trades died at the ownership approval level (other team's) according to Hahn. Have to guess it was Q and Robertson http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/02/whit...p;post-id=85363 I think the Quintana 3 way trade with the Yankees and Pirates fell apart at the last minute Xmas Eve I also feel that the Robertson deal fell apart at the ownership level of the Nationals who were unwilling to expand payroll and move the prospects. They want to Sox to pick up a large amount of the contract, to which Hahn flatly is telling them "no" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:06 PM) Two different trades died at the ownership approval level (other team's) according to Hahn. Have to guess it was Q and Robertson http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/02/whit...p;post-id=85363 Interesting that they died at the ownership level of the other team. I can only believe it had to do with money? Nats' ownership did not want to pay entire Robertson contract and perhaps Pirates could not take back all of Q's money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Don't think pirates have the money for Q with Bastardo still on roster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:20 PM) Don't think pirates have the money for Q with Bastardo still on roster Never in a million years would one think that Q's contract would be a problem for a team lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:20 PM) Don't think pirates have the money for Q with Bastardo still on roster That's been the rumor all off season. K-mart shoppers with a maxed out credit card have no business shopping at Lord & Taylor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:41 PM) Never in a million years would one think that Q's contract would be a problem for a team lol As fans we have to remember that this is still a business first and foremost. While dollars and cents might not matter very much to fans, they especially do at the ownership level I don't think it was the Pirates who backed out at the ownership level, I think it was the Yankees The Nats are in a tough spot, and might be forced into giving up a significant prospect or two to coax the White Sox into helping eat some of Robertson's salary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:46 PM) As fans we have to remember that this is still a business first and foremost. While dollars and cents might not matter very much to fans, they especially do at the ownership level I don't think it was the Pirates who backed out at the ownership level, I think it was the Yankees The Nats are in a tough spot, and might be forced into giving up a significant prospect or two to coax the White Sox into helping eat some of Robertson's salary Probably realized it made no f***ing sense for themselves lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) This is a valid concern and a concern I've expressed over the winter. The Sox should be willing to eat money on Melky/Frazier/Robertson whoever to get a better prospect/package. Yes, they haven't done this in the past, but they've also have never gone on a full rebuild so who knows. I hope ownership allows Hahn to operate this way but we'll see. Eating money is a necessity to doing a legitimate rebuild. While they've never eaten salary (that I can remember) for players they traded away, they have done so recently for players they dumped for nothing. They also took on salary for a bad player last June. So it wouldn't make sense for ownership not to let Hahn eat money to get better prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Why the f*** can't the Sox take Bastardo if that's the deal-breaker right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:49 PM) Eating money is a necessity to doing a legitimate rebuild. While they've never eaten salary (that I can remember) for players they traded away, they have done so recently for players they dumped for nothing. They also took on salary for a bad player last June. So it wouldn't make sense for ownership not to let Hahn eat money to get better prospects. Why eat money if we do not have to? The Nationals want to keep their best prospects off the table in a Robertson deal? Ok, fine. But we are not also going to kick in salary relief for no reason just to help them out. Money is a negotiating point. If the Nats wants cash, then send better prospects to Chicago Hell, I'm sure most of Soxtalk would eat Robertson's entire contract for Robles + another prospect or two (not happening) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 04:53 PM) Why the f*** can't the Sox take Bastardo if that's the deal-breaker right now? Meadows is the dealbreaker A yankees - pirates three way trade likely had Glasnow + Frazier + more coming to the Sox the Pirates alone are not willing to include Meadows in the deal, and without him the Sox are not really all that interested in moving forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I doubt it's the Sox being reluctant to eat money in a trade. Is eating money in a trade any different than releasing players and still paying them to not be on the team anymore? At least when a team eats money in a trade they are receiving players in return. Hell, the Sox paid LaRoche to take his family on vacation and sit on ass watching duck dynasty last summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 05:03 PM) I doubt it's the Sox being reluctant to eat money in a trade. Is eating money in a trade any different than releasing players and still paying them to not be on the team anymore? At least when a team eats money in a trade they are receiving players in return. Hell, the Sox paid LaRoche to take his family on vacation and sit on ass watching duck dynasty last summer. When did the sox pay for Laroche last year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 05:07 PM) When did the sox pay for Laroche last year? They didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 05:13 PM) They didn't. Thats why i waa asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 05:07 PM) When did the sox pay for Laroche last year? My bad, I forgot he walked away and negated his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 05:44 PM) Thats why i waa asking. Haha I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.