Kahnle has pitched 25 great innings so far. It's way too soon to declare him anything like Chapman or Giles.

 

We really don't have any use for Kahnle the next few seasons as we are rebuilding, and I absolutely would dangle him, along with most of our roster, at the deadline.

 

Asking 2 top 100 prospects is absurd at this point though for Kahnle straight up

But so is asking for one low end top 100 prospect for Kahnle. If we eat some money, we should be able to get one 80 - 100 type prospect for Robertson plus a lottery ticket. Two guys like that isn't nearly enough for both David & Kahnle.

 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we should most definitely dangle Kahnle, but the price should be steep. Not Chapman/Miller steep, but the price should reflect the cost of a quality young reliever with elite upside. If I could get a prospect in the 35 to 50 range or two in the 80 to 100 range, I would take that deal in a heartbeat, but otherwise I'm gambling that Kahnle will remain an elite reliever the rest of the season.

Kahnle has pitched 25 great innings so far. It's way too soon to declare him anything like Chapman or Giles.

 

We really don't have any use for Kahnle the next few seasons as we are rebuilding, and I absolutely would dangle him, along with most of our roster, at the deadline.

 

Asking 2 top 100 prospects is absurd at this point though for Kahnle straight up

In regards to the bolded, I mean ultimately, from a pure competitive perspective, we have really no use for any good players during the next few seasons we are rebuilding. In fact, in terms of "use," we would be better off with absolutely horrendous players.

 

But ANY young, cost-controlled, well-performing asset has tremendous use for us in that they become another asset that can be utilized for a window of years in which we do anticipate being competitive, hopefully something like 2020-2025 or whatever.

 

This all depends on what you think Kahnle's potential is. If you think he can sustain, or even improve his level of performance over a period long enough to increase his value as an asset, then you allow him to continue to build value.

 

It makes little sense to cash in on what value he has now if you truly believe his value may increase over the next 6-12 months. His value as an asset will immensely outpace the cost to us for keeping him in our bullpen.

Kahnle seems to have turned into our Nate Jones as in Robertson traded and showcase Jones (now Kahnle) as a closer rest of season and next for 2018 deadline haul.

I agree, which is why it may be better to hold him and gamble that he sustains or even continues to improve.

 

If there is anything I am perfectly willing to sell high on, it is relievers. They are so unstable from season to season.

If there is anything I am perfectly willing to sell high on, it is relievers. They are so unstable from season to season.

Well that is perhaps the entire argument...what IS selling high on Tommy Kahnle?

 

I mean this is not smoke and mirrors...the guy has dominant stuff and has always been thought of that way. The question is, would he ever be able to harness it. He seems to be doing that now.

 

If the Sox believe he can sustain it, they should hold him, absent a critical piece coming back for him. If they believe he's lucky to be sustaining this level for as long as he has, I agree - they should move him for the first reasonable offer they receive.

Well that is perhaps the entire argument...what IS selling high on Tommy Kahnle?

 

I mean this is not smoke and mirrors...the guy has dominant stuff and has always been thought of that way. The question is, would he ever be able to harness it. He seems to be doing that now.

 

If the Sox believe he can sustain it, they should hold him, absent a critical piece coming back for him. If they believe he's lucky to be sustaining this level for as long as he has, I agree - they should move him for the first reasonable offer they receive.

 

It's all about command/control with Kahnle. If he is keeping the ball in the strike zone, no one is really touching him.

 

I think he's legit. I'd offer him at probably just under the Giles price and if no one bites, no one bites.

It's all about command/control with Kahnle. If he is keeping the ball in the strike zone, no one is really touching him.

 

I think he's legit. I'd offer him at probably just under the Giles price and if no one bites, no one bites.

 

I'm not suggesting Kahnle does not have value. I just can't see another club being willing to offer a top 50 mlb prospect in return for a reliever who has thrown 25 great innings this season.

 

Ken Giles netted 4 prospects, I can't see Kahnle being able to command that sort of return at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just do not expect his perceived value to be that high at this point. Now if he continues to pitch like this the rest of the season?He could have very real trade value in the offseason.

I would move Robertson and Swarzak for Soto, plus a lottery ticket or two. I would not do that deal if you swapped Kahnle in for Swarzak, though. Then they would need to add Keiboom.

I would move Robertson and Swarzak for Soto, plus a lottery ticket or two. I would not do that deal if you swapped Kahnle in for Swarzak, though. Then they would need to add Keiboom.

 

I agree. Robertson and Kahnle would require multiple quality pieces coming back to the White Sox, but would hugely improve the Nats bullpen woes.

 

Robertson and Swarzak/Kahnle could be a very attractive package.

 

 

It's all about command/control with Kahnle. If he is keeping the ball in the strike zone, no one is really touching him.

 

I think he's legit. I'd offer him at probably just under the Giles price and if no one bites, no one bites.

Yeah, I agree. I'd even come off that price a little, but I agree that if you believe in him moving forward, the risk is worth taking to hold him absent a strong offer.

I agree. Robertson and Kahnle would require multiple quality pieces coming back to the White Sox, but would hugely improve the Nats bullpen woes.

 

Robertson and Swarzak/Kahnle could be a very attractive package.

I think if you are moving Kahnle and Robertson, you need to get YOUR guy back.

 

Not depth. You need to get a piece you believe you can plug in for years as a valuable regular.

I think if you are moving Kahnle and Robertson, you need to get YOUR guy back.

 

Not depth. You need to get a piece you believe you can plug in for years as a valuable regular.

 

I'm sure the phone will start ringing once the draft is over as teams start to gauge the price for White Sox players, especially relievers.

 

The Nats are screwed really. Ownership prevented Rizzo from signing Greg Holland and/or trading for Robertson, and now the pen is a complete mess. Their farm is not very deep anymore, they do not have much payroll flexibility and their window of contention is rapidly closing. I don't think they will move Robles, but Soto and Kieboom very well might be available.

 

 

Hypothetical: What would you ask from the Nats for Robertson, Kahnle AND Swarzak

Hypothetical: What would you ask from the Nats for Robertson, Kahnle AND Swarzak

All three??? Turner probably.

Hypothetical: What would you ask from the Nats for Robertson, Kahnle AND Swarzak

 

Half of their top 10, starting with Robles.

Hypothetical: What would you ask from the Nats for Robertson, Kahnle AND Swarzak

 

I don't see a deal for three relievers coming together, mainly due to roster moves the Nationals would have to make in order for that to happen. The White Sox will want prospects in return

 

Cost wise, I absolutely would be asking for Robles and/or Fedde + more

 

Robertson is the reliable closer they need, Kahnle and Swarzak have been very good this season and could serve as a bridge to Robertson.

Guys, Robles isn't happening without Moncada or Kopech going back

Hypothetical: What would you ask from the Nats for Robertson, Kahnle AND Swarzak

That is not a conversation that is unlikely to occur, IMO.

 

One stop shopping!

 

I don't even know... I mean I don't think you get Robles with any single one of those guys, but I think if Washington wants two of them even, I need to get Robles back. Beyond Robles, I would likely ask for Kieboom plus a lower level guy like Baez or something.

 

I mean that is the type of deal that just doesn't happen because it isn't really likely that the team divesting itself of 3 nice MLB arms can recoup appropriate value from any one given team .

 

 

Guys, Robles isn't happening without Moncada or Kopech going back

Then they aren't getting the entire back end of our f***ing bullpen.

 

 

Guys, Robles isn't happening without Moncada or Kopech going back

 

You're talking about three quality relievers for a playoff team desperate for some good ones. I think Robles is in play in that hypothetical scenario.

Edited June 14, 20178 yr by 2005thxfrthmmrs

Guys, Robles isn't happening without Moncada or Kopech going back

 

If we are sending three plus and controllable pullpen arms, that is absolutely a fair starting price. Bullpen arms are not as cheap as they used to be.

Then they aren't getting the entire back end of our f***ing bullpen.

 

Fair. I could see Fedde, Soto, Kieboom and one more piece.

 

But I just can't help but think the Miller and Chapman hauls we're abberations.

Fair. I could see Fedde, Soto, Kieboom and one more piece.

 

But I just can't help but think the Miller and Chapman hauls we're abberations.

I mean this is where I say it doesn't do the Sox any good to "bundle."

 

We are not selling out of a junkyard on American Pickers.

 

The only scenario wherein it makes sense for us to make this sort of deal is for quality, IMO. Quality = Robles. Basically, I am willing to overpay to meet your need in order to get back THE player I absolutely believe can fill a great need of my own. Otherwise, I'll trade you Kahnle for Soto and 2 other pieces, or Robertson for Kieboom and 2 other pieces.

 

At least that is how I would envision it.

I mean this is where I say it doesn't do the Sox any good to "bundle."

 

We are not selling out of a junkyard on American Pickers.

 

The only scenario wherein it makes sense for us to make this sort of deal is for quality, IMO. Quality = Robles. Basically, I am willing to overpay to meet your need in order to get back THE player I absolutely believe can fill a great need of my own. Otherwise, I'll trade you Kahnle for Soto and 2 other pieces, or Robertson for Kieboom and 2 other pieces.

 

At least that is how I would envision it.

 

Say, hypothetically, a team is offering a B prospect for Robertson and another team is offering a B- prospect for Kahnle. If you can convince the first team to take them both and get an A- prospect back you do it every time. Especially if that guy is a position player.

I mean this is where I say it doesn't do the Sox any good to "bundle."

 

We are not selling out of a junkyard on American Pickers.

 

The only scenario wherein it makes sense for us to make this sort of deal is for quality, IMO. Quality = Robles. Basically, I am willing to overpay to meet your need in order to get back THE player I absolutely believe can fill a great need of my own. Otherwise, I'll trade you Kahnle for Soto and 2 other pieces, or Robertson for Kieboom and 2 other pieces.

 

At least that is how I would envision it.

 

I'll admit I chuckled at American pickers.