Brad Keller DFA

[Nardiwashere]

25 minutes ago, bmags said:

I don't think anyone disagrees, it's just we are turning over with players that are on the retirement side of their career, not waivers of players who have yet to have a chance and may pan out.

The only thing you could argue is maybe they were more assured with a Keller spot start of not stressing their bullpen...but who cares?

 

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I think that is kind of the point though.  Did we really need to see five minutes of Brad Keller to know that he sucks?  Did we really need to see Rafael Ortega hit like Martin Maldonado to know he sucks?  If we are going to use sorry vets to hold places until the kids are ready, do it.  Let them suck.  But then two seconds later we are churning kids for a start or two like they are going to come up and be stars right away.  If we are going to roster kids, let them play and learn on the job by occasionally getting their asses kicked.  Either let them learn, or protect them.  This thing of being all over the place isn't helping anyone.

 

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I think the question is why waste playing time on garbage like Keller in the first place?  At some point we have to start committing innings to our young starters.  The one strength this system has is SP prospects in the upper minors.  We’re going to have like seven prospects competing for like three or four rotation spots next year in Nastrini, Cannon, Thorpe, Iriarte, Eder, Bush, & Adams.  Why not start giving them some of these starts so evaluations can begin?  There is going to be a learning curve at the major league level and adaption will take time.  Let’s see what Nastrini has to offer at minimum so we can get a pretty good sense if he has be a long-term rotation stalwart or more of a bullpen guy.  No need to cram that initial evaluation into a two month post deadline period because we’re hoping to snag a minor league relief prospect for crap like Keller.

Once the kids start coming up in the second half of this year and next year and Getz is still trying to add guys like Ragael Ortega (when there are prospects being blocked), I'll be with you guys.  I don't see downside right now in seeing if you can get lucky.  If not, what does it cost the team?

I'd much rather watch Nastrini and the others than guys like Keller.  I  think that's coming fairly soon.  I also think if he brought up Iriarte and Eder and Bush and Adams right now, we'd hear a lot more of "Getz is panicking" type posts.  Its still only May.  

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

 

 

Once the kids start coming up in the second half of this year and next year and Getz is still trying to add guys like Ragael Ortega (when there are prospects being blocked), I'll be with you guys.  I don't see downside right now in seeing if you can get lucky.  If not, what does it cost the team?

I'd much rather watch Nastrini and the others than guys like Keller.  I  think that's coming fairly soon.  I also think if he brought up Iriarte and Eder and Bush and Adams right now, we'd hear a lot more of "Getz is panicking" type posts.  Its still only May.  

The panic narrative is born by lurching from plan to plan.  I would understand a team full of awful placeholder vets to protect the kids.  I would also understand a team full of struggling kids.  What I don't understand is going back and forth between the two in very short periods of time, and losing rostered prospects in order to do it.

[Nardiwashere]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The panic narrative is born by lurching from plan to plan.  I would understand a team full of awful placeholder vets to protect the kids.  I would also understand a team full of struggling kids.  What I don't understand is going back and forth between the two in very short periods of time, and losing rostered prospects in order to do it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but what prospects have they lost?

They got rid of Jose Rodriguez and traded Matthew Thompson.  

They traded Mena for Fletcher.  You can say you disagree with the trade but Fletcher isn't a placeholder vet.  

Except for Mena, all the prospects at the start of the year that most people thought were in the team's future plans are still here, no?

 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Nardiwashere said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative but what prospects have they lost?

They got rid of Jose Rodriguez and traded Matthew Thompson.  

They traded Mena for Fletcher.  You can say you disagree with the trade but Fletcher isn't a placeholder vet.  

Except for Mena, all the prospects at the start of the year that most people thought were in the team's future plans are still here, no?

 

They shouldn't be giving away any of them for guys who aren't going to be here in a year.

[bmags]

14 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

 

 

Once the kids start coming up in the second half of this year and next year and Getz is still trying to add guys like Ragael Ortega (when there are prospects being blocked), I'll be with you guys.  I don't see downside right now in seeing if you can get lucky.  If not, what does it cost the team?

I'd much rather watch Nastrini and the others than guys like Keller.  I  think that's coming fairly soon.  I also think if he brought up Iriarte and Eder and Bush and Adams right now, we'd hear a lot more of "Getz is panicking" type posts.  Its still only May.  

It is low stakes, I just think in terms of getting lucky, the prospects we could feasibly get from a surprisingly strong few starts from keller would not be much more than we could buy right now anyway, at least *after he showed what he was in charlotte already*.

I think Julks etc is fine, hell, I think the fletcher stuff WOULD be fine I just didn't like the price. There are players like Kam Misner who I will tell you absolutely probably sucks, whom I'd bet you could get for a song and I'm interested to see if he can provide things like defense + walks + power (his power is gone this year). 

But they are all really low probability stuff, I just think you are better off finding a cheap waiver guy who may provide a few years of starter level play and benefit more from that then "trade brad keller for 24 year old reliever in single A"

[Nardiwashere]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They shouldn't be giving away any of them for guys who aren't going to be here in a year.

Ok.  If the two guys they lost are Thompson and Rodriguez, I'm cool with that. 

I am willing to bet they got rid of Thompson because they don't think he's good... not because Getz woke up in a cold sweat and was panicked that he would lose his job during a season without any expectations less than a year after being hired by Jerry Reinsdorf lol.  

 

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

It is low stakes, I just think in terms of getting lucky, the prospects we could feasibly get from a surprisingly strong few starts from keller would not be much more than we could buy right now anyway, at least *after he showed what he was in charlotte already*.

I think Julks etc is fine, hell, I think the fletcher stuff WOULD be fine I just didn't like the price. There are players like Kam Misner who I will tell you absolutely probably sucks, whom I'd bet you could get for a song and I'm interested to see if he can provide things like defense + walks + power (his power is gone this year). 

But they are all really low probability stuff, I just think you are better off finding a cheap waiver guy who may provide a few years of starter level play and benefit more from that then "trade brad keller for 24 year old reliever in single A"

Yeah I don't think trading Brad Keller for a single A reliever is a winning strategy either.  I just don't think it matters in the big scheme of things.  I imagine they either saw a small chance he could do something or they thought he could provide innings. 

Who would you trade for Kam Misner?  A lot of handwringing happened when they traded the soft throwing bullpen arm for Julks.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Nardiwashere said:

Ok.  If the two guys they lost are Thompson and Rodriguez, I'm cool with that. 

I am willing to bet they got rid of Thompson because they don't think he's good... not because Getz woke up in a cold sweat and was panicked that he would lose his job during a season without any expectations less than a year after being hired by Jerry Reinsdorf lol.  

 

Yeah I don't think trading Brad Keller for a single A reliever is a winning strategy either.  I just don't think it matters in the big scheme of things.  I imagine they either saw a small chance he could do something or they thought he could provide innings. 

Who would you trade for Kam Misner?  A lot of handwringing happened when they traded the soft throwing bullpen arm for Julks.

We also gave away Bailey Horn from the Thompson deal for cash.

Look like I said, the odds of any one guy turning out to be big from one of the deals is low.  But the point is you horde as many of them as you can to increase the odds of having the one guy who breaks out.  I don't think anyone thought Declan Cronin was going to be anything when they waived him.  Yet here he is in 2024 putting up huge numbers at the MLB level out of the pen.

Take a Matt Thompson, he was an awful minor league starter.  Why didn't we give him run as a reliever to see if he could redeem value instead of trading him for a 26 year old reliever who we also didn't keep around for any amount of time, only to trade away for cash?

Also it isn't just those two/three guys.

Alex Speas

Sammy Peralta

Jake Cousins

Peyton Burdick

Lane Ramsey

Romy Gonzalez

 

Plus there are other guys we have waived that just didn't get claimed like Berroa and Garcia.

 

[Nardiwashere]

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

We also gave away Bailey Horn from the Thompson deal for cash.

Look like I said, the odds of any one guy turning out to be big from one of the deals is low.  But the point is you horde as many of them as you can to increase the odds of having the one guy who breaks out.  I don't think anyone thought Declan Cronin was going to be anything when they waived him.  Yet here he is in 2024 putting up huge numbers at the MLB level out of the pen.

Take a Matt Thompson, he was an awful minor league starter.  Why didn't we give him run as a reliever to see if he could redeem value instead of trading him for a 26 year old reliever who we also didn't keep around for any amount of time, only to trade away for cash?

Also it isn't just those two/three guys.

Alex Speas

Sammy Peralta

Jake Cousins

Peyton Burdick

Lane Ramsey

Romy Gonzalez

 

Plus there are other guys we have waived that just didn't get claimed like Berroa and Garcia.

 

Come on now.  Jake Cousins?  He's 30 and they had him in the organization for like 90 days.  You don't think that is picking nits?  

Teams make decisions on guys like the ones on your list all the time.  Don't think Getz is going to be remembered for losing out on Lane Ramsey. 

[GreenSox]

To bring players in, you have to move players out. There will always be a list if he's doing his job.

The affectation with Bryan Shaw cost the Sox.  They chose him over Chavez out of the Spring, and Chavez is having another good year with the Braves.  They then dumped Jose Rodriguez, who is really the only really lamentable cut they've made  (in my eyes) to keep Shaw, only to cut Shaw a few days later.   Trading for Bailey Horn was silly; cutting him shouldn't make much difference.
As for his other trades, trading Mena was a bad move.   Cease return was a bit disappointing; but perhaps it was overhyped and there was a some doubt thanks to a so-so 2023.

With an inexperienced GM who also really didn't have the background for the job, not terrible.  

 

[Nardiwashere]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

We also gave away Bailey Horn from the Thompson deal for cash.

Look like I said, the odds of any one guy turning out to be big from one of the deals is low.  But the point is you horde as many of them as you can to increase the odds of having the one guy who breaks out.  I don't think anyone thought Declan Cronin was going to be anything when they waived him.  Yet here he is in 2024 putting up huge numbers at the MLB level out of the pen.

Take a Matt Thompson, he was an awful minor league starter.  Why didn't we give him run as a reliever to see if he could redeem value instead of trading him for a 26 year old reliever who we also didn't keep around for any amount of time, only to trade away for cash?

Also it isn't just those two/three guys.

Alex Speas

Sammy Peralta

Jake Cousins

Peyton Burdick

Lane Ramsey

Romy Gonzalez

 

Plus there are other guys we have waived that just didn't get claimed like Berroa and Garcia.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

Come on now.  Jake Cousins?  He's 30 and they had him in the organization for like 90 days.  You don't think that is picking nits?  

Teams make decisions on guys like the ones on your list all the time.  Don't think Getz is going to be remembered for losing out on Lane Ramsey. 

Haha, actually, don't we still have Lane Ramsey?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=ramsey000lan

Yay!

[southsider2k5]

14 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

Come on now.  Jake Cousins?  He's 30 and they had him in the organization for like 90 days.  You don't think that is picking nits?  

Teams make decisions on guys like the ones on your list all the time.  Don't think Getz is going to be remembered for losing out on Lane Ramsey. 

Again, it isn't always about the individual players.  It is about the concept of hording as much as you can for as long as you can trying to get the one in five, one in ten, one in a million (like Tatis Jr.)  No one though Getz was going to to remembered for losing Declan Cronin so they could sign Tim Hill, yet Cronin is singlehandedly destroying Hill in terms  of production this season.  Sure the odds are against each of these guys individually, but as a bucket full of guys, the odds increase dramatically one of them can breakout.

 

[Capn12]

No idea why Leone deserves a spot more than Keller. I'd rather have Keller tbh, Leone is cooked.

[Nardiwashere]

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Again, it isn't always about the individual players.  It is about the concept of hording as much as you can for as long as you can trying to get the one in five, one in ten, one in a million (like Tatis Jr.)  No one though Getz was going to to remembered for losing Declan Cronin so they could sign Tim Hill, yet Cronin is singlehandedly destroying Hill in terms  of production this season.  Sure the odds are against each of these guys individually, but as a bucket full of guys, the odds increase dramatically one of them can breakout.

 

Someone like Tatis was very young and raw.  No one thought he would become what he ended up being.  However, there is a difference between getting rid of Tatis and getting rid of a 28 year old that you have seen in your system for multiple seasons and can make an educated decision on. 

You can't keep an infinite number of these guys.  I'm no expert but I'd be willing to bet that every team will have a list of guys like you named that they "lost."  Hell, there are guys on your list that have been with 2 organizations since they left the Sox.  I don't think its evidence of league-wide panic at various GM positions.

Another thing- no front office is going to be perfect.  Every team will lose a Cronin and sign a Hill.  That doesn't move the needle for me unless the front office misses more than it hits.  Jury is still out. 

EDIT: Isn't HIll doing ok?

Edited May 20 by Nardiwashere

[Quin]

45 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

We also gave away Bailey Horn from the Thompson deal for cash.

Look like I said, the odds of any one guy turning out to be big from one of the deals is low.  But the point is you horde as many of them as you can to increase the odds of having the one guy who breaks out.  I don't think anyone thought Declan Cronin was going to be anything when they waived him.  Yet here he is in 2024 putting up huge numbers at the MLB level out of the pen.

Take a Matt Thompson, he was an awful minor league starter.  Why didn't we give him run as a reliever to see if he could redeem value instead of trading him for a 26 year old reliever who we also didn't keep around for any amount of time, only to trade away for cash?

Also it isn't just those two/three guys.

Alex Speas

Sammy Peralta

Jake Cousins

Peyton Burdick

Lane Ramsey

Romy Gonzalez

 

Plus there are other guys we have waived that just didn't get claimed like Berroa and Garcia.

 

For anyone flaunting Julks' um, success, in his two start with the Sox so far, this logic would make Romy an MVP candidate based on his time with the Red Sox.

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

Someone like Tatis was very young and raw.  No one thought he would become what he ended up being.  However, there is a difference between getting rid of Tatis and getting rid of a 28 year old that you have seen in your system for multiple seasons and can make an educated decision on. 

You can't keep an infinite number of these guys.  I'm no expert but I'd be willing to bet that every team will have a list of guys like you named that they "lost."  Hell, there are guys on your list that have been with 2 organizations since they left the Sox.  I don't think its evidence of league-wide panic at various GM positions.

Another thing- no front office is going to be perfect.  Every team will lose a Cronin and sign a Hill.  That doesn't move the needle for me unless the front office misses more than it hits.  Jury is still out. 

EDIT: Isn't HIll doing ok?

Some of the guys we have gotten rid of have been very young and or very raw, including Thompson.

[Nardiwashere]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Some of the guys we have gotten rid of have been very young and or very raw, including Thompson.

The list of guys you provided were all 26-29 years old.  We acquired someone in that age range last week and @WhiteSox2023 and @baseball_gal_alywanted to storm Guaranteed Rate with pitchforks.

Do you really think letting Matthew Thompson go is analogous to Tatis or are you just trying to win an argument?  These guys saw him up close for four years.  

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Nardiwashere said:

The list of guys you provided were all 26-29 years old.  We acquired someone in that age range last week and @WhiteSox2023 and @baseball_gal_alywanted to storm Guaranteed Rate with pitchforks.

Do you really think letting Matthew Thompson go is analogous to Tatis or are you just trying to win an argument?  These guys saw him up close for four years.  

One more time, it isn't about one individual guy.  I know you keep coming back to disqualify each guy one by one but that is not the point here.

[WestEddy]

2 hours ago, Snopek said:

The lines can get pretty blurry between “horrible slump” and “playing at the expected low level.”

And if the latter group only includes Maldonado and none of Lopez, Pillar, Dejong, Fletcher, Shewmake, Benintendi and Vaughn, I’d say that’s a massive miscalculation on Getz’s part.

Horrible slump implies throwing your hands up and saying “What’re you gonna do” when there is significant reason to believe a player is much better than what they are currently showing.

I don’t think any of the guys I mentioned can confidently fit into that category.

Of all the guys you listed, Shewmake is the only one who could have been "expected" to have produced at much below replacement level. 

But even so, we're arguing the word "panic". If Getz knew these guys were bad, then he's methodically churning through the guys he thought might rise to the occasion. DeJong appears to be the only one who did. 

[Nardiwashere]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

One more time, it isn't about one individual guy.  I know you keep coming back to disqualify each guy one by one but that is not the point here.

Ok.  I agree.  If a team was theoretically able to keep everyone in perpetuity that has ever been associated with their organization in the hopes that some will exceed all reasonable expectations,  while still being able to make other moves, they should keep them.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Nardiwashere said:

Ok.  I agree.  If a team was theoretically able to keep everyone in perpetuity that has ever been associated with their organization in the hopes that some will exceed all reasonable expectations,  while still being able to make other moves, they should keep them.

A ridiculous exaggeration, as many of these moves which required our minor leaguers to be ditched never had to be made.  Again, we didn't need to see Brad Keller to know he sucked.  There were plenty of these which forced out guys who were long term controllable.

[Nardiwashere]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

A ridiculous exaggeration, as many of these moves which required our minor leaguers to be ditched never had to be made.  Again, we didn't need to see Brad Keller to know he sucked.  There were plenty of these which forced out guys who were long term controllable.

Brad Keller is younger than some of the guys on your list of lost prospects and he has actually had major league success.  Where do you make the distinction between un-droppable and trash?  Years of control?

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

Brad Keller is younger than some of the guys on your list of lost prospects and he has actually had major league success.  Where do you make the distinction between un-droppable and trash?  Years of control?

Right now years of control is very important, especially when you are talking about making room for a guy with no control and giving up a guy with a ceiling that isn't going to be any higher than the guy you send out of the system to get him into the roster.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

15 hours ago, nrockway said:

I'd want to see Shuster, might as well try to get the most out of the Bummer trade ?!

Although, Soroka was throwing his fastball a couple MPH faster out of the bullpen, right? Did he keep that up through 4 innings? If he can sit 95, Soroka might be an OK 5th starter. Flexen did that for one start, touching 97, then came back to Earth.

He hit 96/97 consistently through the 1st 3 innings.Didnt seem to have control..Walked 4 guys but got out of the jams so looks like he can maintain it a certain amount of pitchers. I'm not sure how many pitches he had through those 1st three innings. I didn't see anything above 94 in his 4th inning but turned out to be either his best or 2nd best inning of the 4.

I know people think he's toast but if you can start throwing strikes at 96/97 and find your command he'd get much better results and the Sox have 2 months to figure out how to get the most value out of him.

Maybe he's just been holding back as a starter trying to go 5 or 6 innings by not throwing at max effort . He's had a tough row to hoe with all the injuries and is still young enough to readjust. There are mental and physical things to push through. That takes time to happen . It's hard enough to just figure out that your best that worked in the past isn't going to consistently get MLB hitters out and you have to add a pitch that can take years to figure out. Steve Stone said he tried a change up many times but could never get it right or feel comfortable with it. There are just so many different things you can try. As a player you could win Cy Young or MVP but that doesn't mean you ever stop trying to improve .

Most players have enough talent to be decent MLB players but the true secret to succeed is often reinventing yourself. You're constantly revolving and developing as your body and strengths change.This is why we so often hear, yet disregard, that development isn't linear. It's also why player development at every level is so important.

Baseball is so unique and required a great deal of patience and mental fortitude to work through many failures .

[WestEddy]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am going to say this much.  One minute you literally pulled out the transaction meter as a measure of how the Sox are just like other teams, and then when those transactions were dove into, then you instantly disowned it because it went against your narrative.

I'm not disowning it. Okay, I was wrong to say the White Sox were right on par with all other teams. They haven't had the most transactions, and there's a good half dozen within 3-4 transactions. I would have expected them to have twice the amount of transactions as the next most team, the way everybody's screaming. 

I get it. You don't like Getz, so you call the churning through pitching projects "panic". I don't mind Getz, and I don't mind him picking up a bunch of players, throwing them out there to see if they're fixable, then launching them if they're not. I don't find myself embarrassed by it, I'm not angered by it. Any sports talk bro could go on a rant about Max Stassi not being on the parent club, and a bunch of meat-head listeners would think the guy's makin' sense. Or why Pham hasn't been traded. Or why this or that prospect isn't in the majors. 

But again, you have people spewing nonsense all day, every day. Actual false info about pitchers gaining 5 mph on their fastball upon leaving, and you don't chase them down to back up what they're saying. I know I have an argumentative tone, and I am trying to tone it down. 

[WestEddy]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The panic narrative is born by lurching from plan to plan.  I would understand a team full of awful placeholder vets to protect the kids.  I would also understand a team full of struggling kids.  What I don't understand is going back and forth between the two in very short periods of time, and losing rostered prospects in order to do it.

Why are you assuming that placeholder vets and struggling kids are two different plans? If you bring up a prospect, and you see he's struggling mightily, why are we married to "that struggling prospect must start every game the rest of the year"? That's not "how they learn", as everybody keeps claiming. 

I can certainly buy into Getz seeing the first three weeks, and realizing he had to do something to avoid the record books. He adjusted. Churned in more vets to see who clicked, cycled in Nastrini, League, Cannon, Ramos, Sosa, Fletcher, Shuster, and got the guys out who needed to work on something that would be catastrophic at the ML level.