OmarComing25 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (Soha @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:08 AM) I think there's a little bit of a glut of relievers available this year - as opposed to last year. Probably from teams seeing what the Cubs and Tribe paid last year. I'm skeptical that the Sox would have landed a top 100 prospect for Robertson. Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It didn't help that Baltimore tanked the last few weeks and went into sell mode with their glut of good relievers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FT35 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 08:52 AM) Not sure what my favorite deal is (probably the Eaton deal considering the haul of 3 major prospects), but I don't love this NYY deal, it's confusing to me, wish JR would have ate the money thus keeping Kahnle and not having to take on Clippard, I find it hard to believe D=Rob and Frazier bring back Clarkin and Polo, D-Rob should bring back a guy on the back 50 of the Top 100 at least I think Q was the last of the big 3 Hahn could use for blue chip prospects. Once they were gone he had to try to use the value of multiple pieces to try to squeeze out another top 40ish talent and that's what he did. The NYY deal was all about Rutherford. Hahn was able to use mostly Robertson's value, Frazier's rental value and Kahnle's potential together to milk one more top piece to add to the system instead of a handful of depth pieces. But we're getting to the point where our system is 12-15 deep...you need top talent to crack into that group--depth is nice, but you need to front load top talent on your top prospects list. If you don't get that top talent piece back...the chances of a deal comprised of lower level prospects making a significant impact on the rebuild is lower. For Boston, only Devers could crack that group of ours...maybe Groome, but Boston probably got outbid by NY simply because NY was willing to add the bigger name into the deal. It's really a good deal for both teams. Edited July 19, 2017 by FT35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxJon Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) I very much disagree with this and if I were an opposing GM I would not have given up a top 100 prospect for Robertson unless the White Sox took on much of his contract. The fact that apparently Hahn wouldn't budge on D-Rob for Robles straight up and then settles for a struggling 20 year old in A ball is very puzzling, I'm not big on Rutherford at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconOnAStick Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Rutherford is not struggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) The fact that apparently Hahn wouldn't budge on D-Rob for Robles straight up and then settles for a struggling 20 year old in A ball is very puzzling, I'm not big on Rutherford at all The lack of power this year is concerning but I wouldn't call a 112 wRC+ struggling. I also looked up the park factors for Charleston and it's a pretty big pitcher's park. He needs to start hitting for more power though, that .109 ISO is ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam8610 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) The fact that apparently Hahn wouldn't budge on D-Rob for Robles straight up and then settles for a struggling 20 year old in A ball is very puzzling, I'm not big on Rutherford at all When was D-Rob for Robles offered? Pretty sure that was never, or D-Rob would be in a Nats uniform today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconOnAStick Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Rutherford has almost the same offensive profile as Robles, it's just that Rutherford's power hasn't developed (yet) because he's been a part of a major league organization only a year compared to Robles' three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I am the one who voted for the Rutherford trade. With Sale, we traded a high value player for high value prospects. With Eaton, we did that again, and with Q, we did it a third time. But last night, we took three pieces of questionable value and turned them into the game's 30th best prospect. IIRC, Frazier was initially going to bet us Ockimey+, an interesting but relatively untouted 1B. That was probably overblown, so people started talking about Cosart and Ball? Woof. Then, with no real evidence from anywhere, we started thinking Robertson could get us Soto from the Nats. Except the As then traded two guys and only got lesser prospects than that (Neuse and Luzardo). Even in their desperation, the Nats didn't give up a top 100 for two guys. Last, there's Kahnle. What could we have gotten for him? It seems like he's put it altogether, but at the same time, relievers are fickle (see not only Jones, Nate, but also Politte, Cliff). Also, in his last 7 outings dating back to June 25, Kahnle has an ERA of 9.53. In fact, since his first 11.2 IP of the year, his ERA is 3.33. You might say this is a small sample, but he's a 28 year old reliever with 36 good innings. Everything is SSS. So keep in mind, I'm basing my vote on appreciating a return we had no business getting (Rutherford+) over ones that we absolutely deserved (Moncada++, Giolito+, Jimenez+). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam8610 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:43 AM) The lack of power this year is concerning but I wouldn't call a 112 wRC+ struggling. I also looked up the park factors for Charleston and it's a pretty big pitcher's park. He needs to start hitting for more power though, that .109 ISO is ugly. And clearly a result of a 20 year old kid needing to fill out and turn his gap power into HR power, not to mention, as you just stated, his home park suppresses offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxJon Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 12:07 PM) When was D-Rob for Robles offered? Pretty sure that was never, or D-Rob would be in a Nats uniform today. Rizzo has been calling on D-Rob for months and Hahn insisted on Robles on the return, hence why it didn't happen, Rizzo didn't budge and settled for Madson/Doolittle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 08:36 AM) Rizzo has been calling on D-Rob for months and Hahn insisted on Robles on the return, hence why it didn't happen, Rizzo didn't budge and settled for Madson/Doolittle Idk if we insisted Robles, but we certainly wanted one of Robles/Soto/Fedde/Kieboom in return. 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.