iamshack Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 01:33 PM) Actually I have thought about that one. Oh I would move him...in fact I mentioned it in re: the Braves last week. But I wouldn't do it for less than I thought I should get back. Although I'm not his biggest fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 03:29 PM) Yeah, I get it. I watch sports too. I think there is a case to be made that this guy is here to stay now. That case is backed by actual data, unlike the case of Avi, perhaps, and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that this may be the beginning of something, rather than a flash in the pan. That's all the argument is. Then folks started throwing the injury stuff into the equation, when, it probably isn't warranted in the case of Kahnle, or at least not more than any other 28 year old pitcher in his 4th year as a professional. By this measure, should we trade Rodon for whatever we can get after he gets his feet under him a bit? Since he might need tjs? It's possible he's different, but the White Sox haven't proved to me yet that they can identify the players that defy the trends of something like common decline from aging or relief variability. They will probably have to for us to actually make most of rebuild. But for now, I'm much happier that they are accepting the broad trends likely to predict performance and risk for groups like relievers and taking the safer route. Especially when they got imo acceptable value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 08:32 AM) This link isn't taking me to anything about Polo. Am I missing something? weird here you go link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 03:42 PM) It's possible he's different, but the White Sox haven't proved to me yet that they can identify the players that defy the trends of something like common decline from aging or relief variability. They will probably have to for us to actually make most of rebuild. But for now, I'm much happier that they are accepting the broad trends likely to predict performance and risk for groups like relievers and taking the safer route. Especially when they got imo acceptable value. Really compelling post and ideas. The analysis could also be applied in support of the entire decision to rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 01:42 PM) It's possible he's different, but the White Sox haven't proved to me yet that they can identify the players that defy the trends of something like common decline from aging or relief variability. They will probably have to for us to actually make most of rebuild. But for now, I'm much happier that they are accepting the broad trends likely to predict performance and risk for groups like relievers and taking the safer route. Especially when they got imo acceptable value. Well, he's 28. I don't suspect he's going to decline from aging a whole lot between this year and his age 29 season, but I suppose you just never know. As for variability, I can accept that argument. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 04:13 PM) Well, he's 28. I don't suspect he's going to decline from aging a whole lot between this year and his age 29 season, but I suppose you just never know. As for variability, I can accept that argument. Fair enough. Yeah I was thinking more of the vets we tried to bring in like LaRoche for that part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 https://www.fanragsports.com/mlb/white-sox/...s-underwhelming Some scouts down on Rutherford. Lack of power and hard contact is worrisome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 04:24 PM) https://www.fanragsports.com/mlb/white-sox/...s-underwhelming Some scouts down on Rutherford. Lack of power and hard contact is worrisome. Didn't know fathom worked for fanragsports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:41 PM) Didn't know fathom worked for fanragsports. I have no opinion of him yet. I was relaying what KLaw had said. As for these reviews...yikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 This article compares Rutherford's stock to Giolito this past offseason http://nypost.com/2017/07/19/sonny-gray-ma...kees-next-step/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 02:59 PM) This article compares Rutherford's stock to Giolito this past offseason http://nypost.com/2017/07/19/sonny-gray-ma...kees-next-step/ Well, that is very discouraging. All we can hope is that they are wrong. I do have a hard time believing the Yankees felt that way about him...one would think they would have tried harder for Q if they knew Rutherford could have been a significant piece of that deal and they didn't even like him much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 04:57 PM) I have no opinion of him yet. I was relaying what KLaw had said. As for these reviews...yikes I know, was just messing around. I can understand why people would pessimistic given the lack of HRs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 The thing that gives me hope is that the HR park factor for Charleston last year was 0.4930, that's crazy low. That home park really suppresses offense. Looking at Rutherford's splits confirms this: Home: .242/.308/.320 Away: .315/.373/.452 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I am not at all concerned with Rutherford... 0% concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (hi8is @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 05:23 PM) I am not at all concerned with Rutherford... 0% concerned. Exactly. You have to be pretty paranoid to hate last night's trade. They got their guy. Be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) This article compares Rutherford's stock to Giolito this past offseason http://nypost.com/2017/07/19/sonny-gray-ma...kees-next-step/ Rutherford is only 20 years old and has plenty of time to develop into the player we hope he can be. Not sure how execs could sour on such a young player already? He'll be just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 03:26 PM) Exactly. You have to be pretty paranoid to hate last night's trade. They got their guy. Be happy. A little paranoid? Guilty as charged. Can you name all the other 19-20 year old hitters the Sox collective braintrust has been so easily picking out in the last 5-7 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 05:26 PM) Exactly. You have to be pretty paranoid to hate last night's trade. They got their guy. Be happy. Their guy that they've basically passed on twice in one year. Their guy or not it's not about Rutherford to me, I'm completely fine with him being the main piece, I would have just liked one other top 100 or so guy, that's all. Edited July 19, 2017 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) Sweeney comes to mind immediately as a "sweet swing" guy who simply never developed that 15-20 HR power that was initially projected... OTOH, Kyle Tucker was hardly lighting the world on fire offensively until the second half last year and the first half of this season. One year ago, you could project him into the Top 20-30 category, or even higher, but it was simply that, a projection or educated guess based on his frame, future growth/weight gain, swing/mechanics, etc. And wouldn't we logically conclude Cashman still wouldn't part with an injuried Gleyber Torres for Q...and not Rutherford as the headliner? And not one of their two close to big league-ready OFers (one who's injured now)??? Edited July 19, 2017 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam8610 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) This article compares Rutherford's stock to Giolito this past offseason http://nypost.com/2017/07/19/sonny-gray-ma...kees-next-step/ I don't think that's what it said, as they say the Yankees felt he'd develop into a very good player (Paul O'Neill was pretty good). Even if they were down on him, the reason given was timeframe, meaning he'd be a much better fit for the White Sox on that basis anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 05:44 PM) Their guy that they've basically passed on twice in one year. Their guy or not it's not about Rutherford to me, I'm completely fine with him being the main piece, I would have just liked one other top 100 or so guy, that's all. But why? Frazier had no real value, Robertson is not a dominant closer and is still owed a lot of money. Kahnle is the only one of those guys that was worth anything, but he certainly wasn't worth 2 Top 100 guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (TRU @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 07:33 PM) But why? Frazier had no real value, Robertson is not a dominant closer and is still owed a lot of money. Kahnle is the only one of those guys that was worth anything, but he certainly wasn't worth 2 Top 100 guys. Most insider types felt Robertson could fetch a backend top 100 type. Add Florial or Sheffield to the deal (Sox kick in a few million as well) and it is much more palatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 09:22 PM) Most insider types felt Robertson could fetch a backend top 100 type. Add Florial or Sheffield to the deal (Sox kick in a few million as well) and it is much more palatable. Again, I would never have done that and can't figure out why some "Insiders" would think that makes sense. Maybe if it was from a team where the White Sox were picking up a lot of his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 09:22 PM) Most insider types felt Robertson could fetch a backend top 100 type. Add Florial or Sheffield to the deal (Sox kick in a few million as well) and it is much more palatable. I think if that were true Robertson would have been gone at some point before last night. No one is itching to pay 13 million + for a good but not dominant closer. Especially when its pretty obvious the Sox did not want to eat any of his salary in a deal. Frazier was practically worthless. He didn't need to be here anymore and we couldn't offer the QO to get a pick because he would have more than likely accepted it. I don't even consider him an asset in this deal. Ultimately we get a top 30-40ish prospect plus two more actual prospects to unload the Robertson money and Kahnle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSpalehoseCWS Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 09:22 PM) Most insider types felt Robertson could fetch a backend top 100 type. Add Florial or Sheffield to the deal (Sox kick in a few million as well) and it is much more palatable. If Robertson fetches you a back end top 100, then you don't end up with Rutherford. I personally would rather have one top 25 or 50 than two top 100's near the end of the list. The combined value of Robertson and Kahnle got him. The Sox couldn't get him with just Kahnle and absolutely had no shot with just Robertson. Of course it would have been nice to get more but it's not a bad deal by any means. 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.