Jump to content

Sox send Frazier/DRob/Kahnle to NY ~ Rutherford/Clarkin/Clippard/Polo


southsider2k5
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:25 PM)
Have we decided he's bad now? I hadn't paid attention since the "anyone is better than Ventura" days

Every manager we'll ever have we'll be considered bad here. That's not a shot at anyone, that's just sports message boards in a nut shell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:25 PM)
You would be wrong:

 

Evidence:

 

Cubs-World-Series-champions.jpg

 

I'd say the Cubs never lost on purpose. Only Bryant was a draft pick in the post-tank era who was a big piece of their WS team. And that wasn't even a #1 overall pick. They just traded all their good veteran players and never said no to a player playing well on their MLB team. Like I said, the losing will happen if you are maximizing the value of your veterans. But there's no use futzing around trying to squeeze out extra losses by making bad managerial decisions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soha @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:25 PM)
I was just thinking that. He seems like a 3rd or 4th piece.

 

I think it's pretty unlikely Clarkin is the 2nd best piece in this deal. Trading 3 above average major leaguers. Two of which have control beyond this season. This package should contain Rutheford, (insert prospect), Clarkin, +

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, glad to see Inwas wrong and Rutherford is in the deal. I just hope Clarkin isn't the second biggest piece coming our way. Can't imagine Dave would react the way he did if he was.

 

Also, how crazy is it that Basabe was our #1 OF prospect two months ago and now we have three guys in the top 50. Hell, Basabe probably would be ranked #6 now if I had to guess.

Basabe is barely top 30. The crazy part is that Burger and Collins barely make it into the top 15 (!). Sox are loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:25 PM)
You would be wrong:

 

Evidence:

 

Cubs-World-Series-champions.jpg

 

If you want to be bad, be the worst. Fans will show up at the end of the rebuild or when studs start showing up.

It seemed to work out quite well for the Astros, too. I'm sure the Nationals aren't regretting ending up with Harper & Strasburg, either. There is no guaranteed way to build a contender, but bottoming out/rebuilding is the most likely way to build a sustainable contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 02:28 AM)
I'd say the Cubs never lost on purpose. Only Bryant was a draft pick in the post-tank era who was a big piece of their WS team. And that wasn't even a #1 overall pick. They just traded all their good veteran players and never said no to a player playing well on their MLB team. Like I said, the losing will happen if you are maximizing the value of your veterans. But there's no use futzing around trying to squeeze out extra losses by making bad managerial decisions, etc.

 

Theo has said he wanted them to lose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:28 PM)
I'd say the Cubs never lost on purpose. Only Bryant was a draft pick in the post-tank era who was a big piece of their WS team. And that wasn't even a #1 overall pick. They just traded all their good veteran players and never said no to a player playing well on their MLB team. Like I said, the losing will happen if you are maximizing the value of your veterans. But there's no use futzing around trying to squeeze out extra losses by making bad managerial decisions, etc.

 

Sherman reporting no money expected to change hands in the deal. Rutherford was included in q trade talks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:28 PM)
I'd say the Cubs never lost on purpose. Only Bryant was a draft pick in the post-tank era who was a big piece of their WS team. And that wasn't even a #1 overall pick. They just traded all their good veteran players and never said no to a player playing well on their MLB team. Like I said, the losing will happen if you are maximizing the value of your veterans. But there's no use futzing around trying to squeeze out extra losses by making bad managerial decisions, etc.

Uh, go look at those lineups in a season where they won 61 games. They tanked. It's part of the game.

 

And don't give me that Bryant crap. The Astros blew their number 1 pick, but if the Cubs weren't horrible, they wouldn't have had a shot at Bryant.

 

The tank is on. It's time to get with the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 08:28 PM)
I'd say the Cubs never lost on purpose. Only Bryant was a draft pick in the post-tank era who was a big piece of their WS team. And that wasn't even a #1 overall pick. They just traded all their good veteran players and never said no to a player playing well on their MLB team. Like I said, the losing will happen if you are maximizing the value of your veterans. But there's no use futzing around trying to squeeze out extra losses by making bad managerial decisions, etc.

 

Schwarber was the 4th pick in the draft, well in to their tank era. And he had a pretty darn good World Series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:08 PM)
Bob Nightengale‏Verified account @BNightengale 26s26 seconds ago

The #Yankees are sending outfielder Blake Rutherford, their first-round pick in 2016, to the #WhiteSox as part of the deal.

 

 

QUOTE (Sockin @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:29 PM)
Sox are taking Clippard.

Gotta be the reason why we got Rutherford or the player Dave is talking about. Free agent at the end of the year anyways.

Edited by Soxnfins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:24 PM)
I would bet under barring a huge shift in what he's doing at the plate. He is literally swinging for flyballs in an attempt to hit home runs, and hitting flyballs otherwise. His IFFB% is right around 17% over the past 3 seasons. His BABIP is s*** because it deserves to be s***.

 

Exactly. I'm all for advanced statistics, but at some point the common sense eye test needs to come in play. You can't just compute #'s like there is no human factor going into it. Watch 1 Todd Frazier AB and watch him pull off/try to hook every single pitch he sees no matter the speed or location and it should be obvious why he has a low BABIP.

 

And to the original guy...sorry I don't to fake internet bets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...