Jump to content
FT35

Rick Hahn

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 07:43 AM)
Tim Anderson was never discussed for James Shields. I mean I'm sure the Padres asked but GTFOH. Barstool Dave DM'ed me the trade details a week prior to it actually happening on twitter. Erik Johnson and Fernando Tatis were the names I heard from the inception.

That's the sick thing...they thought about this trade for weeks and still f***ing did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 10:06 AM)
That's the sick thing...they thought about this trade for weeks and still f***ing did it.

 

 

It was fine though. Shields got rocked in 1 start, the one prior to the deal. They didn't give up anything and they are paying below market value for what they thought they were getting. Shields obviously has to be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 08:10 AM)
It was fine though. Shields got rocked in 1 start, the one prior to the deal. They didn't give up anything and they are paying below market value for what they thought they were getting. Shields obviously has to be better.

I mean that's the way I like to think about it when I go to sleep every night, but honestly, they gave up $25 million. I'm hard-pressed to believe his performance with the White Sox over the remainder of the deal could not have been duplicated by someone basically making the minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big question is whether Johnson, Tatis and the $25 million Sox commitment were agreed upon BEFORE the owner went off on him and he was shelled in Seattle for all those runs.

 

If Hahn kept the deal on the table because it was a "gentleman's agreement" and didn't push to negotiate it down (again), he's an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.

 

How much did that last week actually cost the Padres and Preller? Nothing? $5 million? $10 million?

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 10:23 AM)
The big question is whether Johnson, Tatis and the $25 million Sox commitment were agreed upon BEFORE the owner went off on him and he was shelled in Seattle for all those runs.

 

If Hahn kept the deal on the table because it was a "gentleman's agreement" and didn't push to negotiate it down (again), he's an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.

 

How much did that last week actually cost the Padres and Preller? Nothing? $5 million? $10 million?

 

Considering Rick Hahn is "known" for his negotiating skillset, I highly doubt your scenario occurred. But what the f*** do I know... I've never negotiated with Hahn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 28, 2016 -> 10:27 PM)
Once again, Southsider, you are wrong. Argumentative, as usual, but still wrong.

 

You talk about Anderson, implying how astute Hahn was not to trade Tim Anderson? Give me a break. Preller's negotiating ploy was to drop Anderson's name, knowing it will be quickly refused. Then he goes down the food chain and comes up with Tatis, and Hahn started rubbing Preller's leg.

 

Shields is not dirt cheap. Nice metaphor. No one else was trying to trade for the innings eater. At any price.

 

And you think because Tatis was not in Sox Top 30 list, he is automatically expendable for Shields? Using your words, Let's be honest. He is 17, just signed 2-4 months ago, and never played stateside at time of this horrible trade. How could he possibly be in Top 30? Preller is chirping in San Diego

 

It must have been great to be sitting in the negotiations. Either that or you are full of s*** and making stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 09:03 AM)
Rick Hahn paying James Shields $27 million for 2 1/2 seasons...total dope

 

AJ Preller pays James Shields $46 million for 1 1/2 seasons and trades him for Eric Johnson and a 17 year old Rick Hahn signed....crafty GM.

 

Why didn't Preller just sign Tatis in the first place ?

 

Tatis cost $600,000. It would have been much cheaper to just sign him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 10:23 AM)
The big question is whether Johnson, Tatis and the $25 million Sox commitment were agreed upon BEFORE the owner went off on him and he was shelled in Seattle for all those runs.

 

If Hahn kept the deal on the table because it was a "gentleman's agreement" and didn't push to negotiate it down (again), he's an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.

 

How much did that last week actually cost the Padres and Preller? Nothing? $5 million? $10 million?

The Tatis/Johnson price was rumored well before the Seattle blowup.

Hahn is like his mentor re trade negotiations.

One could wonder if that money paid for Shields, some Laroche savings, couldn't have gone into the international market for this year, into which Hahn, apparently, is making a paltry investment.

Edited by GreenSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 11:32 AM)
The Tatis/Johnson price was rumored well before the Seattle blowup.

Hahn is like his mentor re trade negotiations.

One could wonder if that money paid for Shields, some Laroche savings, couldn't have gone into the international market for this year, into which Hahn, apparently, is making a paltry investment.

 

 

You do realize that the INTL market and how much they spend is absolutely dependent on Reinsdorf right? You can criticize Hahn for trades and signings. Not going nuts on the international market is strictly an ownership decision though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 11:54 AM)
You do realize that the INTL market and how much they spend is absolutely dependent on Reinsdorf right? You can criticize Hahn for trades and signings. Not going nuts on the international market is strictly an ownership decision though.

Is this true? I'm not sure how the budget is run for the organization. However, could there be a scenario where JR says "here's the budget, spend how you see fit." From this KW/Hahn decides not to put as much in the INTL market and instead focuses elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 11:57 AM)
Is this true? I'm not sure how the budget is run for the organization. However, could there be a scenario where JR says "here's the budget, spend how you see fit." From this KW/Hahn decides not to put as much in the INTL market and instead focuses elsewhere?

 

 

No chance. If they aren't going over, Jerry is the reason. Jerry doesn't believe in paying amateur lottery tickets that much money. It's why the drafting sucked forever. Reinsdorf would rather spend that $$ on the big league club instead of on amateurs. It's why he pushed for the new slotting system. KW liked toolsy athletes and JR liked saving money. That's how you settle for the Keenyn Walker's of the world. There is now way that Hahn can decide to spend $20 million on the INTL market and pay a 100% overage without getting it cleared first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:06 PM)
No chance. If they aren't going over, Jerry is the reason. Jerry doesn't believe in paying amateur lottery tickets that much money. It's why the drafting sucked forever. Reinsdorf would rather spend that $$ on the big league club instead of on amateurs. It's why he pushed for the new slotting system. KW liked toolsy athletes and JR liked saving money. That's how you settle for the Keenyn Walker's of the world. There is now way that Hahn can decide to spend $20 million on the INTL market and pay a 100% overage without getting it cleared first.

KW didn't like toolsy players all the time. That was a shift from his previous philosophy of safe college players.

 

So what you're saying is that KW/Han have the money to spend up to the INTL limit so not to pay a penalty? Honestly, with how much of a lottery ticket most of these INTL players are, I'm not sure going that far over and paying massive penalties is worth it.

Edited by ptatc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 01:20 PM)
KW didn't like toolsy players all the time. That was a shift from his previous philosophy of safe college players.

 

So what you're saying is that KW/Han have the money to spend up to the INTL limit so not to pay a penalty? I wonder how many other teams take the same philosophy?

IIRC the last few years they've spent up to very close to their international limit without going over, which to me is actually a fairly sensible way to do it because the penalty the next year will hurt and piling up a large number of guys does seem to increas the chances of a success story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:06 PM)
No chance. If they aren't going over, Jerry is the reason. Jerry doesn't believe in paying amateur lottery tickets that much money. It's why the drafting sucked forever. Reinsdorf would rather spend that $$ on the big league club instead of on amateurs. It's why he pushed for the new slotting system. KW liked toolsy athletes and JR liked saving money. That's how you settle for the Keenyn Walker's of the world. There is now way that Hahn can decide to spend $20 million on the INTL market and pay a 100% overage without getting it cleared first.

How did guys like Abreu, Alexei and viciedo fit into this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:21 PM)
IIRC the last few years they've spent up to very close to their international limit without going over, which to me is actually a fairly sensible way to do it because the penalty the next year will hurt and piling up a large number of guys does seem to increas the chances of a success story.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 11:54 AM)
You do realize that the INTL market and how much they spend is absolutely dependent on Reinsdorf right? You can criticize Hahn for trades and signings. Not going nuts on the international market is strictly an ownership decision though.

All money decisions are ownership decisions.

This premature "going for it" and bogus "3 year window" (when the core was signed for 5/6 years) was probably an ownership decision or a KW decision. it was totally unrealistic and had little chance of working (as we are seeing).

But for as long as KW has worked with JR and for as long as Hahn has worked with KW, he's got to have developed some trust. And he should have told JR to wait a year or 2 until we rebuild this thing and THEN we'll go for it. In the meantime, spend some money on the organization.

But KW was probably the "go for it" instigator.

 

I still think they could make some progress without trading Sale and Q; put Robertson, Frazier and Cabrera out there.

Edited by GreenSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:52 PM)
All money decisions are ownership decisions.

This premature "going for it" and bogus "3 year window" (when the core was signed for 5/6 years) was probably an ownership decision or a KW decision. it was totally unrealistic and had little chance of working (as we are seeing).

But for as long as KW has worked with JR and for as long as Hahn has worked with KW, he's got to have developed some trust. And he should have told JR to wait a year or 2 until we rebuild this thing and THEN we'll go for it. In the meantime, spend some money on the organization.

But KW was probably the "go for it" instigator.

Unbelievable........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:26 PM)
How did guys like Abreu, Alexei and viciedo fit into this?

 

I am certainly not an expert on this and someone can probably answer with more certainty, but I am nearly positive that Abreu and Alexei were past the age cut off to be a part of the international spending restrictions.

 

As for Viciedo, I think he was signed before the latest changes to international signings which instituted the restrictions and subsequent penalties if going over, IIRC. Same deal with Alexei, even if he was subject to the restrictions (still think he was past age cut off), it was before these new rules were enacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:52 PM)
All money decisions are ownership decisions.

This premature "going for it" and bogus "3 year window" (when the core was signed for 5/6 years) was probably an ownership decision or a KW decision. it was totally unrealistic and had little chance of working (as we are seeing).

But for as long as KW has worked with JR and for as long as Hahn has worked with KW, he's got to have developed some trust. And he should have told JR to wait a year or 2 until we rebuild this thing and THEN we'll go for it. In the meantime, spend some money on the organization.

But KW was probably the "go for it" instigator.

I still think they could make some progress without trading Sale and Q; put Robertson, Frazier and Cabrera out there.

Another 'retooling' approach? From everything I've read or heard thus far, that will most definitely be their approach. In fact, it has always been their approach. The 'ol catch lightning in a bottle with guys off the scrap heap to an occasional free agent signing to an occasional trade for players passed their prime etc.. It's a system that has failed them over and over-- yet they fail to change. They try to do a little bit of this and alittle bit of that to put together a team 'on the fly' For once, I would like to see them commit to one thing. Commit to restocking the farm with prospects and spend 2-3 years developing guys. Commit to going ALL IN on type A free agents not just a couple of type B guys. The problem with the white sox, is their horrible retooling approach. Just knock it off! Commit to a damn direction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 02:06 PM)
I am certainly not an expert on this and someone can probably answer with more certainty, but I am nearly positive that Abreu and Alexei were past the age cut off to be a part of the international spending restrictions.

 

As for Viciedo, I think he was signed before the latest changes to international signings which instituted the restrictions and subsequent penalties if going over, IIRC. Same deal with Alexei, even if he was subject to the restrictions (still think he was past age cut off), it was before these new rules were enacted.

Abreu did not count towards the international signing limits due to service time already incurred in Cuba, that is correct. Alexei was signed before those were implemented, but the same thing probably would have happened to him. If Viciedo had been signed for that contract after the CBA that instituted the international limits, his contract would have blown past the limits and incurred a next year penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 11:52 AM)
All money decisions are ownership decisions.

This premature "going for it" and bogus "3 year window" (when the core was signed for 5/6 years) was probably an ownership decision or a KW decision. it was totally unrealistic and had little chance of working (as we are seeing).

But for as long as KW has worked with JR and for as long as Hahn has worked with KW, he's got to have developed some trust. And he should have told JR to wait a year or 2 until we rebuild this thing and THEN we'll go for it. In the meantime, spend some money on the organization.

But KW was probably the "go for it" instigator.

 

I still think they could make some progress without trading Sale and Q; put Robertson, Frazier and Cabrera out there.

 

I think it's sensible to put at least Robertson out there. We have an outside chance of making the playoffs but many teams in front of us and the inability to win divisional games. Having a resource of Robertson's caliber for a .500 team is not critical. He's saved 20 of our 77 games. He's much more valuable to a playoff-bound team. Putnam and Jones both have better numbers than Robertson and could most likely cover the 9th. I'd love to see if they could get a couple of pieces for Robertson now and if they actually make the unlikely climb back into the race, maybe make a splash and get someone else at the deadline or maybe turn to someone like Carson Fulmer like they did with Bobby Jenks in 05'. But in all likelihood, if we were to climb back into the race by then, it would be because Putnam and Jones were getting the job done, so we might not have to change anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 01:18 PM)
Abreu did not count towards the international signing limits due to service time already incurred in Cuba, that is correct. Alexei was signed before those were implemented, but the same thing probably would have happened to him. If Viciedo had been signed for that contract after the CBA that instituted the international limits, his contract would have blown past the limits and incurred a next year penalty.

Thanks, I was just curious as to how the White Sox could spend that much money on the INTL market yet not be assessed the penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 11:55 AM)
Unbelievable........

 

PTATC:

 

Don't know if you know this but in fact it was Kenny who talked to the mainstream media last June about the "three year window / plan." Until then nobody had heard much if anything along those lines. Green is not making something up here, Kenny did say this.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (FT35 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 12:18 PM)
I think it's sensible to put at least Robertson out there. We have an outside chance of making the playoffs but many teams in front of us and the inability to win divisional games. Having a resource of Robertson's caliber for a .500 team is not critical. He's saved 20 of our 77 games. He's much more valuable to a playoff-bound team. Putnam and Jones both have better numbers than Robertson and could most likely cover the 9th. I'd love to see if they could get a couple of pieces for Robertson now and if they actually make the unlikely climb back into the race, maybe make a splash and get someone else at the deadline or maybe turn to someone like Carson Fulmer like they did with Bobby Jenks in 05'. But in all likelihood, if we were to climb back into the race by then, it would be because Putnam and Jones were getting the job done, so we might not have to change anything!

 

Putnam though is probably done for the year.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jun 29, 2016 -> 01:15 PM)
Another 'retooling' approach? From everything I've read or heard thus far, that will most definitely be their approach. In fact, it has always been their approach. The 'ol catch lightning in a bottle with guys off the scrap heap to an occasional free agent signing to an occasional trade for players passed their prime etc.. It's a system that has failed them over and over-- yet they fail to change. They try to do a little bit of this and alittle bit of that to put together a team 'on the fly' For once, I would like to see them commit to one thing. Commit to restocking the farm with prospects and spend 2-3 years developing guys. Commit to going ALL IN on type A free agents not just a couple of type B guys. The problem with the white sox, is their horrible retooling approach. Just knock it off! Commit to a damn direction!

What I call retool, is really a rebuild, but over 3 years (like the Cubs did), not 5-10. Build the core to 8 and THEN sign the free agents. They had it to 4 and stopped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×