Tommy Kahnle

[southsider2k5]

I'll admit I chuckled at American pickers.

 

I just want someone to look at Derrick Holland and call him "Rusty Gold".

[iamshack]

I just want someone to look at Derrick Holland and call him "Rusty Gold".

[Eminor3rd]

Guys, Robles isn't happening without Moncada or Kopech going back

 

This ^

 

Guys like Robles are simply not part of the conversation for non-legendary relief pitchers. You can make an argument that three of them are equal in value to Robles, but as mentioned before, the actual mechanics of adding three pitchers to your 25-man roster at the same time are incredibly complicated and come with additional costs, like clubhouse stability and possibly the loss of other players who are bad now but might be useful down the road. It works in video games but not in reality.

[iamshack]

This ^

 

Guys like Robles are simply not part of the conversation for non-legendary relief pitchers. You can make an argument that three of them are equal in value to Robles, but as mentioned before, the actual mechanics of adding three pitchers to your 25-man roster at the same time are incredibly complicated and come with additional costs, like clubhouse stability and possibly the loss of other players who are bad now but might be useful down the road. It works in video games but not in reality.

Understood, but that was the question posed. We were asked to say what would we require to trade these three players. As much as this doesn't happen for the Nationals, it doesn't happen for the White Sox either.

 

Theoretically, the Nats could include two of their s***ty relievers in the package to simplify things a bit.

 

Either way, just as much as Q can say Robles isn't coming back, I can say you aren't getting my best 3 relievers.

[southsider2k5]

Understood, but that was the question posed. We were asked to say what would we require to trade these three players. As much as this doesn't happen for the Nationals, it doesn't happen for the White Sox either.

 

Theoretically, the Nats could include two of their s***ty relievers in the package to simplify things a bit.

 

Either way, just as much as Q can say Robles isn't coming back, I can say you aren't getting my best 3 relievers.

 

Yep. The more pieces that fly around, the more complicated the deal gets.

[Quin]

Yep. The more pieces that fly around, the more complicated the deal gets.

 

I can't believe it didn't dawn on me.

 

Rick would only get this complex for a three team deal, which we know he loves three ways.

[Eminor3rd]

Understood, but that was the question posed. We were asked to say what would we require to trade these three players. As much as this doesn't happen for the Nationals, it doesn't happen for the White Sox either.

 

Theoretically, the Nats could include two of their s***ty relievers in the package to simplify things a bit.

 

Either way, just as much as Q can say Robles isn't coming back, I can say you aren't getting my best 3 relievers.

 

Yes, agreed. I just think I'm saying that Rizzo would never ask for three relievers in the first place.

[southsider2k5]

I can't believe it didn't dawn on me.

 

Rick would only get this complex for a three team deal, which we know he loves three ways.

 

Hahn loves three ways

[iamshack]

Yes, agreed. I just think I'm saying that Rizzo would never ask for three relievers in the first place.

Let me ask you this...do you think it is improbable that they go out and get 2 relievers on the market?

Edited June 14, 2017 by iamshack

[steveno89]

Let me ask you this...do you think it is improbable that they go out and get 2 relievers on the market?

 

The Nationals do have other options: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/dusty-ba...e-some-options/

 

But not all of those options are necessarily great ones. Doolittle has been very injury prone, and I'm not sure I would want to rely on him staying on the field to anchor a world series run.

 

Herrera has had a down year, and the Royals are not necessarily out of the division race yet.

 

Colome is not going to come cheap in a trade.

 

Hand won't come cheap in a trade.

 

Twins are in first place, why would they sell as of right now?

 

Mason could be an option, although his contract is not all that cheap for a soon to be 37 year old player.

 

Neshek seems like a fit, but not necessarily as your world series closer.

 

Ramos is an ok option, but far from dominant as of late. He's due a hefty raise via arbitration.

 

 

[iamshack]

The Nationals do have other options: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/dusty-ba...e-some-options/

 

But not all of those options are necessarily great ones. Doolittle has been very injury prone, and I'm not sure I would want to rely on him staying on the field to anchor a world series run.

 

Herrera has had a down year, and the Royals are not necessarily out of the division race yet.

 

Colome is not going to come cheap in a trade.

 

Hand won't come cheap in a trade.

 

Twins are in first place, why would they sell as of right now?

 

Mason could be an option, although his contract is not all that cheap for a soon to be 37 year old player.

 

Neshek seems like a fit, but not necessarily as your world series closer.

 

Ramos is an ok option, but far from dominant as of late. He's due a hefty raise via arbitration.

Yeah, one would think they would want to pair someone like Neshek and Robertson....two different styles...

 

IMO, they need more than just a closer though...they need 2-3 pieces.

[steveno89]

Yeah, one would think they would want to pair someone like Neshek and Robertson....two different styles...

 

IMO, they need more than just a closer though...they need 2-3 pieces.

 

Not sure they can really afford to acquire 2-3 impact pieces given the current status of their farm?

 

If I am the Nationals I fully roll the dice and go for it in 2017 and 2018, who knows when they will have this good of a chance again? The NL East is weak, you could secure home field advantage and have a real shot.

 

I'd be extremely hesitant to deal Robles as he is directly a replacement for Harper after next season.

[iamshack]

Not sure they can really afford to acquire 2-3 impact pieces given the current status of their farm?

 

If I am the Nationals I fully roll the dice and go for it in 2017 and 2018, who knows when they will have this good of a chance again? The NL East is weak, you could secure home field advantage and have a real shot.

 

I'd be extremely hesitant to deal Robles as he is directly a replacement for Harper after next season.

I mean let's face it, no one is f***ing replacing Harper...I get that this kid is a great prospect and will play the same position, but Bryce Harper, he is not.

 

I agree with you on going all in.

 

Imagine an organization that limited Strasburg's innings a few years back because they were so certain he was going to pitch them to multiple World Series now fails to shore up its bullpen while it has Bryce Harper, and therefore loses in the playoffs. Then Bryce Harper leaves. How will the FO be looking then?

 

Now also imagine if they go out and get that bullpen solidified with 2-3 good pieces, and they go on to win or at least compete for a World Series. When Bryce leaves, I don't think the FO will be taking heat, even if they had to move a guy like Robles to win while Harper was here.

 

Not saying I wouldn't want to keep Robles...but if the choice was between having my best chance of winning while Harper is here and leaving my roster exposed for the next year or two in the playoffs because of some kid currently in high A ball at the moment, I know which direction I am going in.

[steveno89]

I mean let's face it, no one is f***ing replacing Harper...I get that this kid is a great prospect and will play the same position, but Bryce Harper, he is not.

 

I agree with you on going all in.

 

Imagine an organization that limited Strasburg's innings a few years back because they were so certain he was going to pitch them to multiple World Series now fails to shore up its bullpen while it has Bryce Harper, and therefore loses in the playoffs. Then Bryce Harper leaves. How will the FO be looking then?

 

Now also imagine if they go out and get that bullpen solidified with 2-3 good pieces, and they go on to win or at least compete for a World Series. When Bryce leaves, I don't think the FO will be taking heat, even if they had to move a guy like Robles to win while Harper was here.

 

Not saying I wouldn't want to keep Robles...but if the choice was between having my best chance of winning while Harper is here and leaving my roster exposed for the next year or two in the playoffs because of some kid currently in high A ball at the moment, I know which direction I am going in.

 

I'm with you. Case in point is the Chapman and Miller deals last year.

 

Chapman was a pure three month rental for the Cubs, and it cost them Torres.

 

Miller was more than a rental, but returned Frazier and Sheffield plus a couple of flyers.

 

Robertson/Swarzak/Kahnle are not on their level certainly, but I'd be interested if Robertson + Kahnle + cash could be enough to push them over the edge and deal Robles +

[Eminor3rd]

Let me ask you this...do you think it is improbable that they go out and get 2 relievers on the market?

 

I think it's improbable that they get 2 pricey relievers, but I don't think it's necessarily improbable that they get two guys.

 

I could absolutely see them jumping on a waiver pickup, promoting a prospect like Fedde, or buying low on a cheap has-been for one role, and then paying up for a market-rate guy as a "closer."

 

I think it's less likely, but certainly possible that they get Robertson + Swarzak and give up a guy like Soto.

 

But who knows, surprises happen.

[Bob Sacamano]

How many teams can pull off a deal for a reliever similar to the deals the Yankees made with Indians and Cubs without it effecting their minor league systems that badly? It really didn't hurt either honestly. We all know about the depth the Cubs have at the MLB level and in the minors still and the Indians still had what, 5 top 100 players post-trade?

Edited June 14, 2017 by soxfan2014

[Boopa1219]

Would extending Kahnle to a team friendly deal (like Nate Jones) and buying out his arb years, make him more valuable?

[Bob Sacamano]

Would extending Kahnle to a team friendly deal (like Nate Jones) and buying out his arb years, make him more valuable?

 

I would assume so. Teams would have the financial certainty and control.

Edited June 14, 2017 by soxfan2014

[steveno89]

Would extending Kahnle to a team friendly deal (like Nate Jones) and buying out his arb years, make him more valuable?

 

I don't think it is necessary as Kahnle is under team control through the 2020 season anyways. That is ages of control for a reliever who is going to be 28 years old in August.

[iamshack]

I would assume so. Teams would have the financial certainty and control.

Not sure at this point, for the same reasons that were argued for him not bringing back a top prospect - maybe not enough history there.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm with you. Case in point is the Chapman and Miller deals last year.

 

Chapman was a pure three month rental for the Cubs, and it cost them Torres.

 

Miller was more than a rental, but returned Frazier and Sheffield plus a couple of flyers.

 

Robertson/Swarzak/Kahnle are not on their level certainly, but I'd be interested if Robertson + Kahnle + cash could be enough to push them over the edge and deal Robles +

 

Price-wise, your logic is sound, but it's predicated on the false assumption that market price for players remains stable over any significant period of time. Every time a trade happens in the MLB, the amount of supply AND demand in the market changes substantially. The buyer willing to pay the highest price for the player just left the market. Sure the Cubs were willing to give up Torres for Miller in 2016, but it is no longer 2016, the Cubs no longer have Torres, and the Cubs are no longer buying relievers. Also, Robertson isn't nearly as good as Miller, and the world has almost universally agreed that the trade was an overpay that only made sense because the Cubs ended up winning the title.

 

There are so many dynamic, unique factors to each trade season that it just doesn't make sense to use previous season's trades as baselines for player value, IMO.

[Bob Sacamano]

Not sure at this point, for the same reasons that were argued for him not bringing back a top prospect - maybe not enough history there.

 

In the sense you extend him now/at some point this season and then try to move him in the off-season or next year's deadline. It would look weird to extend him now only trade him in a month. They'd probably extend him and let him try to gain more of a track record. The price certainty I was referring to would be keeping his cost lower than what he could make in arbitration like you already know how much he's guaranteed so you can budget accordingly.

Edited June 14, 2017 by soxfan2014

[Eminor3rd]

Would extending Kahnle to a team friendly deal (like Nate Jones) and buying out his arb years, make him more valuable?

 

I would think so -- the Nate Jones deal is so cheap that it would make pretty much ANY decent player more valuable. Even if Kahnle busts entirely, the amount of salary he'd be owed each year is just a step above rounding error.

[iamshack]

Price-wise, your logic is sound, but it's predicated on the false assumption that market price for players remains stable over any significant period of time. Every time a trade happens in the MLB, the amount of supply AND demand in the market changes substantially. The buyer willing to pay the highest price for the player just left the market. Sure the Cubs were willing to give up Torres for Miller in 2016, but it is no longer 2016, the Cubs no longer have Torres, and the Cubs are no longer buying relievers. Also, Robertson isn't nearly as good as Miller, and the world has almost universally agreed that the trade was an overpay that only made sense because the Cubs ended up winning the title.

 

There are so many dynamic, unique factors to each trade season that it just doesn't make sense to use previous season's trades as baselines for player value, IMO.

I agree with you, and made a similar argument in regards to the inefficiencies of the market, however, it is undeniable that GMs do EXACTLY that which you say it makes no sense to do.

 

This is a result of this being a bilateral market where information is not transparent.

 

And btw, yes, the Cubs no longer have Torres, but the Nationals do have Robles, and absolutely have the ability to achieve the same end result as the Cubs did last year.

[steveno89]

Price-wise, your logic is sound, but it's predicated on the false assumption that market price for players remains stable over any significant period of time. Every time a trade happens in the MLB, the amount of supply AND demand in the market changes substantially. The buyer willing to pay the highest price for the player just left the market. Sure the Cubs were willing to give up Torres for Miller in 2016, but it is no longer 2016, the Cubs no longer have Torres, and the Cubs are no longer buying relievers. Also, Robertson isn't nearly as good as Miller, and the world has almost universally agreed that the trade was an overpay that only made sense because the Cubs ended up winning the title.

 

There are so many dynamic, unique factors to each trade season that it just doesn't make sense to use previous season's trades as baselines for player value, IMO.

 

I'll agree with that. I'm using those deals as a recent deadline example for relief pitching.

 

The Nationals are faced with a championship caliber roster and rotation, but a weak pen that is likely to result in their early playoff exit unless addressed. I would go as far to say the 2017 Nationals might be in a more desperate situation than the Cubs were in 2016, because the Cubs theoretical contention window is longer than that Nats.

 

Robertson is not as good, no doubt, but Robertson is also very much available. I do not see an appreciably better and/or more proven closing option on the trade market right now, or at least one that will come at an equal or lesser cost.

 

Adding a closer does not really solve their issues though, as their entire pen, outside of Albers, has been bad.

 

Kahnle will cost too much for them, but a Robertson + Swarzak + cash for some combination of prospects not named Robles or Fedde I think could be realistic?