White Sox interested in adding a DH

[FT35]

I disagree. Like I said, the real value of that trade was Kahnle. Robertson was good but was still owed a lot of money, and Frazier was...well, Todd Frazier. Time will tell with Rutherford and even Tito Polo. Maybe the Sox could have gotten a little more, but definitely not a lot more.

 

Agree with you...can't ROB every team on every deal. We maybe could have gotten a little more but in the end, the players who needed moved from our team got moved and not another team's--and Rutherford is in our system instead of another team's. Our team moved closer to our goal with the deal.

Edited February 9, 2018 by FT35

[Balta1701]

Agree with you...can't ROB every team on every deal. We maybe could have gotten a little more but in the end, the players who needed moved from our team got moved and not another team's--and Rutherford is in our system instead of another team's. Our team moved closer to our goal with the deal.

If our scouts were right about Rutherford then at some point he's going to be a breakout player. If they were wrong, then someone screwed up badly because that was a pretty major mistake, to like the guy in the draft, pay a high trade price for him in a trade, and then not get a big league player out of it. They clearly like this guy, so if they're wrong, that should be one of those "how were we this badly wrong" moments where you change your scouts or change the evaluation tools that led you to that guy.

 

For his prospect ranking at the time that was a fair price, but you would have to hope that they were doing slightly more diligence on these guys than saying "What is their ranking in the MLB.com prospects list right now and is that fair for what we're giving up?"

[Jack Parkman]

That trade was more about clearing Frazier/Robertson off the books, Whether we'd like to believe it or not, I think that the return was affected by it being a combination of Robertson/Frazier/Kahnle rather than Kahnle alone. Truly believe that because of the money with the other two guys, they got less. I think we could have finagled Sheffield or Andujar without them having to take on Frazier and Robertson's money. For some reason clearing them from the books was more important to Hahn than the extra prospect.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Balta1701]

That trade was more about clearing Frazier/Robertson off the books, Whether we'd like to believe it or not, I think that the return was affected by it being a combination of Robertson/Frazier/Kahnle rather than Kahnle alone. Truly believe that because of the money with the other two guys, they got less. I think we could have finagled Sheffield or Andujar without them having to take on Frazier and Robertson's money. For some reason clearing them from the books was more important to Hahn than the extra prospect.

Worth pointing out - at the time that deal was made, Sheffield and Andujar were seriously outranked on most prospect lists by Rutherford. Based on those, Rutherford was more valuable and it wasn't close, at the time.

 

The question remains whether we scouted rutherford correctly.

[fathom]

I think the Sox scouts just really liked Rutherford, even though guys like KLaw were very disappointed with what they were seeing during 2017

[Dick Allen]

Worth pointing out - at the time that deal was made, Sheffield and Andujar were seriously outranked on most prospect lists by Rutherford. Based on those, Rutherford was more valuable and it wasn't close, at the time.

 

The question remains whether we scouted rutherford correctly.

On a prospect list that wasn't current. I really doubt the Yankees thought Rutherford outranked the other 2.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

On a prospect list that wasn't current.

Midseason, BA list, Rutherford was 36, Sheffield was 73, Andujar was out of top 100. Out of those 3, if you bought into that list, you'd pay a higher price for Rutherford. The MLB.com list was also updated at midseason.

[Balta1701]

I really doubt the Yankees thought Rutherford outranked the other 2.

Then it's worth asking why our scouting picked the guy that we did if he doesn't have a breakout year, because that means the Yankees knew their guys well enough to give us the guy they liked the least.

[Dick Allen]

Midseason, BA list, Rutherford was 36, Sheffield was 73, Andujar was out of top 100. Out of those 3, if you bought into that list, you'd pay a higher price for Rutherford. The MLB.com list was also updated at midseason.

So you think major league teams go by those lists?

 

Read up on how these lists are formulated. You will be fascinated with how Dave Wilder kept his scam going for a while. They actually asked HIM to rank his prospects.

 

So these lists are easily manipulated. We have no idea if the White Sox asked for the others or if the Yankees offered the White Sox the others. But Rutherford had some flags when the Sox acquired him.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[hogan873]

If our scouts were right about Rutherford then at some point he's going to be a breakout player. If they were wrong, then someone screwed up badly because that was a pretty major mistake, to like the guy in the draft, pay a high trade price for him in a trade, and then not get a big league player out of it. They clearly like this guy, so if they're wrong, that should be one of those "how were we this badly wrong" moments where you change your scouts or change the evaluation tools that led you to that guy.

 

For his prospect ranking at the time that was a fair price, but you would have to hope that they were doing slightly more diligence on these guys than saying "What is their ranking in the MLB.com prospects list right now and is that fair for what we're giving up?"

Yes. A good organization would definitely do some sort of failure analysis if a guy the scouts really liked flops.

[FT35]

That trade was more about clearing Frazier/Robertson off the books, Whether we'd like to believe it or not, I think that the return was affected by it being a combination of Robertson/Frazier/Kahnle rather than Kahnle alone. Truly believe that because of the money with the other two guys, they got less. I think we could have finagled Sheffield or Andujar without them having to take on Frazier and Robertson's money. For some reason clearing them from the books was more important to Hahn than the extra prospect.

 

Right--NY picked up all the $ owed to these guys as well. If given the choice, I'd probably rather add another decent prospect to make the deal look better, but the $ off the books stands as value--just the word "cash" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Andujarrrr." I cringed a little too at first glance, but what I liked about it was that Hahn was able to squeeze another (at the time) top 30 prospect out of the remaining pieces that we had--which many of us didn't think would be possible--AND moved the $ tied to them.

[Dick Allen]

Yes. A good organization would definitely do some sort of failure analysis if a guy the scouts really liked flops.

The problem is, everyone flops on prospects. If they had their choice of another prospect and he became a great player, then I think there is something there. But if you held everyone to all what they call top prospects had to develop into good players, no one would have a job very long.

[Chicago White Sox]

I still maintain if we can somehow get JDM on the cheap I’d say do it. Otherwise, I’d stick with what we have on the positional side. I’d rather rotate young guys through the DH spot than get some stop-gap veteran type.

[caulfield12]

But then there are the Trout, Kolek, Brady Aiken, Appel situations where scouts have a near universal consensus on a player at a given point in time and then the group consensus shifts with increasing minor league at bats or innings pitched. Obviously, injuries play a huge role, as well.

 

It would be interesting to see how any scouts are still standing by their original views on Rutherford.

 

And, as someone noted, there’s a long list of guys like Zunino, Chris Taylor, Marwin Gonzalez, Jose Ramirez or Turner who simply took an extra 2-3 years to find themselves, usually with 2nd or 3rd organizations.

 

Fwiw, Tyler Flowers finally became a Top Ten catcher how many years after we traded for him? And the same can be argued to an extent about the Sox remaining patient with Avi Garcia, or even Leury, before he experienced all those health issues the second half.

[WBWSF]

That trade was more about clearing Frazier/Robertson off the books, Whether we'd like to believe it or not, I think that the return was affected by it being a combination of Robertson/Frazier/Kahnle rather than Kahnle alone. Truly believe that because of the money with the other two guys, they got less. I think we could have finagled Sheffield or Andujar without them having to take on Frazier and Robertson's money. For some reason clearing them from the books was more important to Hahn than the extra prospect.

1) Trading Robertson was simply a salary dump.

2) The White Sox now have one of the worse bullpens in MLB.

3) Not only was it a bad trade for the White Sox but Dave Robertson is not happy about being traded to the Yankees. He's in his last year of his contract and he wants to be a closer. That is not going to happen in New York as long as Chapman is there. I wouldn't be surprised to see Robertson traded soon.

Edited February 10, 2018 by WBWSF

[Kyyle23]

1) Trading Robertson was simply a salary dump.

2) The White Sox now have one of the worse bullpens in MLB.

3) Not only was it a bad trade for the White Sox but Dave Robertson is not happy about being traded to the Yankees. He's in his last year of his contract and he wants to be a closer. That is not going to happen in New York as long as Chapman is there. I wouldn't be surprised to see Robertson traded soon.

 

1) they are rebuilding

2) they are rebuilding

3) they are rebuilding, and nobody cares about David Robertson’s feelings when he is a reliever making 10+ million a year

[caulfield12]

1) they are rebuilding

2) they are rebuilding

3) they are rebuilding, and nobody cares about David Robertson’s feelings when he is a reliever making 10+ million a year

 

There are exactly $13 million reasons the NY Post reports he’s happy with whatever role they give him.

 

With Green, Kahnle, Betances and Chapman, that’s five guys with closer stuff.

[BlackSox13]

1) they are rebuilding

2) they are rebuilding

3) they are rebuilding, and nobody cares about David Robertson’s feelings when he is a reliever making 10+ million a year

Lol. Yeah, Robertson looked absolutely miserable pitching in the post season last year for a team that's expected to make the post season again this year. He ain't going anywhere until he's a FA.

[FT35]

1) they are rebuilding

2) they are rebuilding

3) they are rebuilding, and nobody cares about David Robertson’s feelings when he is a reliever making 10+ million a year

 

I liked him when he was here, but if Robertson wants to be a closer for a top team, he simply needs to be better. He’s a pitcher with great stuff and at times overwhelming to hitters. But those times come and go and he goes through stretches of struggles where he gets lit up with regularity. Closers on top teams might have an outing here and there where they get hit hard, but not often a WEEK here and there where they get hit hard (or they are removed from the role). If he wants to close, it’ll be for a mid-tier team, and those are exactly the types of guys who get moved to contending teams as set up guys at trade deadlines. I bet he looks at the Kimbrels, the Jansens and the Chapmans of the world and gets why it’s like that for him.

[GreenSox]

i think closing is Robertson's best spot. He gets to start with nobody on, can make a mistake or two and get out of the inning.

There's no room for error if you're brought in with runners on.

Of course I believe that you shouldn't put your best relievers as closer.

 

There's no way that Robertson and Frazier should have been pure salary dumps, and I don't think they were. I never liked Frazier much, but he's a solid player.

Edited February 11, 2018 by GreenSox

[greg775]

I liked him when he was here, but if Robertson wants to be a closer for a top team, he simply needs to be better. He’s a pitcher with great stuff and at times overwhelming to hitters. But those times come and go and he goes through stretches of struggles where he gets lit up with regularity. Closers on top teams might have an outing here and there where they get hit hard, but not often a WEEK here and there where they get hit hard (or they are removed from the role). If he wants to close, it’ll be for a mid-tier team, and those are exactly the types of guys who get moved to contending teams as set up guys at trade deadlines. I bet he looks at the Kimbrels, the Jansens and the Chapmans of the world and gets why it’s like that for him.

This is pretty general. I don't mind general comments but I got roasted for making general statements about Soria's stint with the Royals. I wouldn't mind seeing some stats to back up your Robertson statements.

[FT35]

This is pretty general. I don't mind general comments but I got roasted for making general statements about Soria's stint with the Royals. I wouldn't mind seeing some stats to back up your Robertson statements.

 

Well Greg, there’s a bit of a difference between general comments based on observation and general comments based on opinion. You can look up the stats on your own if you’d like, or you can call Josh Donaldson and have him fill you in on some Robertson “metrics.” Or ask around...I bet I’m not the only one around here who watches Sox games. Don’t mean to sound demeaning...we still love ya...not sure the board would be the same without your posts!

[WBWSF]

1) they are rebuilding

2) they are rebuilding

3) they are rebuilding, and nobody cares about David Robertson’s feelings when he is a reliever making 10+ million a year

1) They are rebuilding as cheaply as possible.

2) They are rebuilding as cheaply as possible.

3) They are rebuilding as cheaply as possible.

[Bob Sacamano]

1) They are rebuilding as cheaply as possible.

2) They are rebuilding as cheaply as possible.

3) They are rebuilding as cheaply as possible.

 

What does this even mean? Lol

[caulfield12]

What’s an “expensive” rebuild? 2009-2016?

 

But having Miguel Cabrera instead of the Tigers?