Jake

Someone in the presser (before Hahn has arrived) said in the background "Tito Polo's in the trade?"

The "Todd and Melky" thread got locked and consolidated in the Frazier trade mega-thread. I haven't heard any rumors, but they will come. With that said, given how little the Tigers got for JD Martinez, it looks like it will be hard for the Sox to move Melky.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:22 PM) They clearly wanted Rutherford if that's all they're getting. Hope he pans out. That said, it's not a terrible deal if you break it down as: DRob for Rutherford Kahnle for Clarkin Frazier for Polo + salary relief (Clippard) My first thought is I want more for Kahnle. Andujar + Clarkin on that line makes this a win for the White Sox. I'd say it's Frazier for Clarkin. Rutherford was too much of a return for Kahnle, so we give them Robertson but then that's too much going to them so we get some third player.

Well I am a fan of Tito Polo's name

Not holding a lot of hope for this last player

Won't be in this deal, but I hope Sox are open to getting young MLBers who haven't put things together yet in deals. Imagine how little someone would have had to offer to get Avi Garcia in a deal this winter. We should look to get some guys like that coming to us, though Avi's short-ish time to free agency makes him not the world's best example.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:53 PM) Where do you get this crap from? Theo all but said the Cubs were going to try to lose and they did. A lot. Maybe read a little more before saying a team that won 61 games in one season was trying to win? I've given you all the evidence and reasoning that I can. I'm trying to make a distinction between a team like the Sox or Cubs that decides it will prioritize building up its minor leagues over its MLB team (this will always make you lose as a side effect) and the idea that you should make a concerted effort to lose as many games as possible regardless of whether that effort improves your organization. The Cubs would have waited longer to call up Rizzo if they wanted to lose more. They wouldn't have thrown a bunch of money at Edwin Jackson (as it turns out, that helped the losing! oops!). But they let the wins happen because they knew the rebuilding process would keep their draft position in a high-value place regardless. What I think is stupid is the idea of intentionally slow-walking player development, refusing to use the bullpen in a smart way, or dumping decent MLB performers for no return in hopes of generating extra losses. Or, as a general rule, rooting against your team. They'll lose enough without anyone trying to make it happen if you're trading away every veteran who isn't nailed down.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:50 PM) That's a very long winded way of saying you don't understand tanking and the benefits of the highest possible draft pick. That's okay, you aren't alone. No, I do understand. Look at the Cubs World Series roster and tell me about all the good players they got due to their (not even all that high) draft position. It won't take long because it's pretty much just 1 guy. Their rebuild was successful largely due to the trades, not their draft position. I hope the White Sox pursue it the same way because the draft position ain't worth that much when you know it's going to be a good one either way.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:45 PM) Should have changed it to green to show sarcasm. He's using 2014 and 2015 picks as comparison, but they were trying to compete then. If he can use data that makes no sense, I will as well The point was the Cubs were picking from positions that aren't so different from hapless teams like the Sox that were trying to win. That is, the Cubs clearly were not all that dedicated to losing for losing's sake.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:42 PM) Are you suggesting the Astros haven't benefited from tanking? I'm saying they may have squandered fan interest and player development in the service of trying to save the owner money. They were in a rather different position to both Cubs and Sox though because they never really had a big moment where they started trading good veterans to get prospects like Cubs and Sox were able to do to kickstart things. To be clear, my argument wasn't that you go for it every year, but that the reason rebuilding works has little to do with draft position. It's that you stockpile your system by trading veterans and prioritizing the development of your minor leaguers. You will lose and get good draft picks because of that, but there are real benefits to squeezing out a few more wins with the MLB club when it comes to giving the people who watch the games on TV and in the ballpark something worth seeing. From a development standpoint, I think it helps the players to win whenever they can—I also think some pitchers benefit psychologically from not seeing their leads pissed away by awful bullpens. I'm of the opinion that the benefits of winning a little bit more are usually better than picking 2th instead of 5th or whatever.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:35 PM) Finishing as a bottom 6 team three times isn't doing a great job? Or you can compare to the Astros who picked 1, 1, 1, and 2 in 4 consecutive years.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:35 PM) Finishing as a bottom 6 team three times isn't doing a great job? Yes seeing as the White Sox have picked 3 and 8 while trying to win in the past three years

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:29 PM) Theo has said he wanted them to lose Didn't do a great job of it seeing as their draft positions were #6, #2, #4, and #9 during the rebuild phase

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

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:24 PM) Well maybe have a better manager than Renteria Have we decided he's bad now? I hadn't paid attention since the "anyone is better than Ventura" days

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:23 PM) Same would be a tad disappointing Agree. In my ideal (realistic) deal, Clarkin would have been the nice 3rd piece.

I stand firmly by the position that losing on purpose is stupid. You want to win even if you're not actively trying to put good players on your MLB roster. The losing is a byproduct of the restocking of the system. You want fans to come out and see wins and you want your players to play well in tough situations whenever they present themselves.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 10:00 PM) I don't like our chances in the Crosstown Classic Reynaldo Lopez and Yoan Moncada will lead us to victory

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:57 PM) 1 element pushing #Yankees toward trades also is so many 40-man roster questions in offseason, can't keep them all, need to use few in deals https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/887491235706961920 Andujar, Mateo, Tyler Wade, Tyler Austin among prospects on their 40-man.

Like I said a page or two ago, I think Rutherford + Andujar + 1 other real prospect would be fantastic

Rutherford, Andujar, and anyone in the 15-20 range of their prospect list would be pretty great

I think some of the best values are likely to be MLBers who haven't produced yet (or whose production has dropped off after an initial run of good play). With prospects, everything tends to be sunshine and rainbows. The minute a young guy plays badly in the majors, people start getting down on them.

Where has Zack Collins been?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 06:15 PM) I think he will be a nice middle reliever as soon as next year. Can't seem him sticking as a starter. Is there reason to think he'll be able to start striking people out as a reliever? Some do figure it out a bit. Chris Beck comes to mind, though he is of course an abomination who can't leave soon enough.

I think the reason there are indications that Robertson has more value is that teams in the hunt really value the certainty with him. Robertson has been incredibly consistent for years and has performed at a high level for the Yankees. You know you're getting a guy who won't crumble under the pressure and isn't just in the middle of a hot streak. Kahnle obviously lacks the track record and has looked shaky in several of his recent tough appearances (i.e., with a lead to protect).