southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 2 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: Yeah I understand this in hindsight. I don’t actually believe that they should’ve traded him in the real world after 2023 though. I can’t get there. But for Chris Getz it wouldn't be hindsight. It is literally why he was promoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: But for Chris Getz it wouldn't be hindsight. It is literally why he was promoted. He wasn’t going to get value for Luis Robert at that time. It made much more sense to keep him into the season. They got burned. It happens unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 16 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: He wasn’t going to get value for Luis Robert at that time. It made much more sense to keep him into the season. They got burned. It happens unfortunately. Again, if Chris Getz care more about "value" vs what he knows is best for the franchise, why did we hire him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirmin' for Yermin Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 23 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Again, if Chris Getz care more about "value" vs what he knows is best for the franchise, why did we hire him? What’s best for the organization is always maximizing value. We clearing we’re not getting proper value at the time. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said: What’s best for the organization is always maximizing value. We clearing we’re not getting proper value at the time. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting. If you KNOW there is a really good chance this is peak value, and you allow him to depreciate significantly, you didn't get maximum value, and that ISN'T best for the organization. And honestly, why is the assumption they wouldn't get value? Rick Hahn got huge value for both Chris Sale and Adam Eaton with 4 years of control. Why wasn't Chris Getz capable of doing the same? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: If you KNOW there is a really good chance this is peak value, and you allow him to depreciate significantly, you didn't get maximum value, and that ISN'T best for the organization. And honestly, why is the assumption they wouldn't get value? Rick Hahn got huge value for both Chris Sale and Adam Eaton with 4 years of control. Why wasn't Chris Getz capable of doing the same? Yeah I remember reading that they were asking for close to what the Padres gave up for Soto. Robert was never the hitter Soto was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 26 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: If you KNOW there is a really good chance this is peak value, and you allow him to depreciate significantly, you didn't get maximum value, and that ISN'T best for the organization. And honestly, why is the assumption they wouldn't get value? Rick Hahn got huge value for both Chris Sale and Adam Eaton with 4 years of control. Why wasn't Chris Getz capable of doing the same? If you told me it's cause Getz felt he needed to outdo Hahn, I'd believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said: Yeah I remember reading that they were asking for close to what the Padres gave up for Soto. Robert was never the hitter Soto was. Here's the thing. If you know your car has problems, the dealer offers you $1000 under what is is worth, do you walk away knowing it could break down at any time because of "value" or do you take what you can get so you can move on? Even if Chris Getz is more worried about "value" vs what is best for the franchise, he would have been very likely to be be proven right in the long run when Luis Robert has his inevitable breakdown. He literally did this last year with Fedde. He took a less than value deal because he probably knew this was peak value, and even though it was less than what it should have been, it was better to get what they got, than risk keeping him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalChiSox Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 (edited) I know Bowden is kind of a clown but these are interesting comments he has made based on what he has heard, as it's very relevant to some of the very names we discussed. This is from his column today on "Who says No?" evaluating readers proposed trades: . Mets: 3B Eugenio Suárez Diamondbacks: 3B Mark Vientos, OF Drew Gilbert and RHP Blade Tidwell — No name given The Mets say no freaking way. The Mets are not trading Vientos straight-up for a two-month rental of Suárez. That being said, I think I would consider Gilbert and Tidwell for Suárez. 10. Mets get: CF Luis Robert Jr. White Sox get: RHP Nate Dohm and SS Marco Vargas — No name given The White Sox say no. In Robert talks, the Sox have been asking interested teams for two of their top 10 prospects, but they haven’t gotten any takers. However, they have been offered a top 10 prospect plus an add on from multiple teams. I think first base/outfield prospect Ryan Clifford and outfield prospect Nick Morabito, ranked No. 7 and 15, respectively in the Mets’ system by MLB Pipeline, would be closer to what the White Sox are seeking to get to “yes.” 11. Mets pick up Robert and cash for infielder A.J. Ewing? — Mike R. The White Sox say no. I think the White Sox initially say no and ask for a second player in the deal, but maybe a 20-30th-ranked prospect. With Ewing as the centerpiece, I do think there’s a good chance this deal could get done. For more, see https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6518481/2025/07/28/mlb-trade-deadline-scenarios-teams-targets/ Thoughts: - Id do Clifford and Morabito. You get a legit LH power bat and a potential viable OFer as well. -Obviously I'm great with Ewing plus something else. -I'm glad NYM won't trade Vientos for a rental cause I don't want him anyway. It stands to reason if he wouldn't be moved for Suarez, then he wouldn't be moved for Robert. If you are gonna accept a bat only primary piece, take a LH. - I'm glad we are asking for two Top tens. I'm also not shocked we haven't gotten it YET. Bowden mirrors what fathom said, namely current offers are top 10 plus add on. Hopefully by Thursday we can shake loose a second top ten, possibly with some sweetener. Edited July 28 by SoCalChiSox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 51 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Again, if Chris Getz care more about "value" vs what he knows is best for the franchise, why did we hire him? 33 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: If you KNOW there is a really good chance this is peak value, and you allow him to depreciate significantly, you didn't get maximum value, and that ISN'T best for the organization. And honestly, why is the assumption they wouldn't get value? Rick Hahn got huge value for both Chris Sale and Adam Eaton with 4 years of control. Why wasn't Chris Getz capable of doing the same? It wasn’t about maximizing his value. Nobody was going to pay the price that 4 years of Robert should cost. I thought 3-3.5 years would’ve brought back a similar return. That was incorrect. I would’ve needed like 3 top 100 prospects to move 4 years of Robert. I doubt that was on the table. 18 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said: Yeah I remember reading that they were asking for close to what the Padres gave up for Soto. Robert was never the hitter Soto was. I mean it was 4 years of control on Robert and 2 years on Soto. Two completely different situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: It wasn’t about maximizing his value. Nobody was going to pay the price that 4 years of Robert should cost. I thought 3-3.5 years would’ve brought back a similar return. That was incorrect. I would’ve needed like 3 top 100 prospects to move 4 years of Robert. I doubt that was on the table. I mean it was 4 years of control on Robert and 2 years on Soto. Two completely different situations. But we literally hired Chris Getz because he was going to save us a year of figuring out the organization because he knew everyone already. If half of what has been said about Luis Robert is true, plus full well knowing you are betting on a dude that has been injured a ton since we signed him at 18 years old, Getz should have known that 2023 absolutely could be a peak. If he Fedde'd the deal and took one less on something to get a deal done, that is insanely better than what we are getting in 2025. This should have been most obvious to Chris Getz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 42 minutes ago, SoCalChiSox said: I know Bowden is kind of a clown but these are interesting comments he has made based on what he has heard, as it's very relevant to some of the very names we discussed. This is from his column today on "Who says No?" evaluating readers proposed trades: . Mets: 3B Eugenio Suárez Diamondbacks: 3B Mark Vientos, OF Drew Gilbert and RHP Blade Tidwell — No name given The Mets say no freaking way. The Mets are not trading Vientos straight-up for a two-month rental of Suárez. That being said, I think I would consider Gilbert and Tidwell for Suárez. 10. Mets get: CF Luis Robert Jr. White Sox get: RHP Nate Dohm and SS Marco Vargas — No name given The White Sox say no. In Robert talks, the Sox have been asking interested teams for two of their top 10 prospects, but they haven’t gotten any takers. However, they have been offered a top 10 prospect plus an add on from multiple teams. I think first base/outfield prospect Ryan Clifford and outfield prospect Nick Morabito, ranked No. 7 and 15, respectively in the Mets’ system by MLB Pipeline, would be closer to what the White Sox are seeking to get to “yes.” 11. Mets pick up Robert and cash for infielder A.J. Ewing? — Mike R. The White Sox say no. I think the White Sox initially say no and ask for a second player in the deal, but maybe a 20-30th-ranked prospect. With Ewing as the centerpiece, I do think there’s a good chance this deal could get done. For more, see https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6518481/2025/07/28/mlb-trade-deadline-scenarios-teams-targets/ Thoughts: - Id do Clifford and Morabito. You get a legit LH power bat and a potential viable OFer as well. -Obviously I'm great with Ewing plus something else. -I'm glad NYM won't trade Vientos for a rental cause I don't want him anyway. It stands to reason if he wouldn't be moved for Suarez, then he wouldn't be moved for Robert. If you are gonna accept a bat only primary piece, take a LH. - I'm glad we are asking for two Top tens. I'm also not shocked we haven't gotten it YET. Bowden mirrors what fathom said, namely current offers are top 10 plus add on. Hopefully by Thursday we can shake loose a second top ten, possibly with some sweetener. Give me that Big Red Dog! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Phillies fans want to give us Dylan Campbell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 43 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: But we literally hired Chris Getz because he was going to save us a year of figuring out the organization because he knew everyone already. If half of what has been said about Luis Robert is true, plus full well knowing you are betting on a dude that has been injured a ton since we signed him at 18 years old, Getz should have known that 2023 absolutely could be a peak. If he Fedde'd the deal and took one less on something to get a deal done, that is insanely better than what we are getting in 2025. This should have been most obvious to Chris Getz. Look, I’m not going to defend Chris Getz on this because we obviously blew a tremendous opportunity to cash in on Robert after the 2023 season. But there was zero reason at the time to expect his results to fall off a cliff like they did. The injury risk was no doubt legit, but the risk of his value eroding like it has was very low. More importantly, I think we do have acknowledge how broken this org was when Chris took it over. There is some rational is saying the org wasn’t in a spot to feel confident in their ability to identify the right talent in return for Robert. I don’t think Chris should get a free pass for that by any means, but I can see some argument that he wanted to fix the infrastructure before trading a 25 year old coming off a massive season with four years of control. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Look, I’m not going to defend Chris Getz on this because we obviously blew a tremendous opportunity to cash in on Robert after the 2023 season. But there was zero reason at the time to expect his results to fall off a cliff like they did. The injury risk was no doubt legit, but the risk of his value eroding like it has was very low. More importantly, I think we do have acknowledge how broken this org was when Chris took it over. There is some rational is saying the org wasn’t in a spot to feel confident in their ability to identify the right talent in return for Robert. I don’t think Chris should get a free pass for that by any means, but I can see some argument that he wanted to fix the infrastructure before trading a 25 year old coming off a massive season with four years of control. This is not what the revisionist history is telling us. The whole sales job since Getz took the job is that the insiders all knew it was horrible and Hahn had burned this franchise to the ground, so there was no other way to see what was going to happen besides years of pain as they rebuilt from the ashes. The only reason to keep Luis Robert was if you thought you could do this relatively quickly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: But we literally hired Chris Getz because he was going to save us a year of figuring out the organization because he knew everyone already. If half of what has been said about Luis Robert is true, plus full well knowing you are betting on a dude that has been injured a ton since we signed him at 18 years old, Getz should have known that 2023 absolutely could be a peak. If he Fedde'd the deal and took one less on something to get a deal done, that is insanely better than what we are getting in 2025. This should have been most obvious to Chris Getz. 2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: Look, I’m not going to defend Chris Getz on this because we obviously blew a tremendous opportunity to cash in on Robert after the 2023 season. But there was zero reason at the time to expect his results to fall off a cliff like they did. The injury risk was no doubt legit, but the risk of his value eroding like it has was very low. More importantly, I think we do have acknowledge how broken this org was when Chris took it over. There is some rational is saying the org wasn’t in a spot to feel confident in their ability to identify the right talent in return for Robert. I don’t think Chris should get a free pass for that by any means, but I can see some argument that he wanted to fix the infrastructure before trading a 25 year old coming off a massive season with four years of control. Agreed on this. 2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: This is not what the revisionist history is telling us. The whole sales job since Getz took the job is that the insiders all knew it was horrible and Hahn had burned this franchise to the ground, so there was no other way to see what was going to happen besides years of pain as they rebuilt from the ashes. The only reason to keep Luis Robert was if you thought you could do this relatively quickly. I think you're too fixated on the reason why Getz was hired. He was hired because Reinsdorf is cheap and couldn't be bothered to go outside the organization. I'm guessing they just thought they could trade him for similar value later. That obviously looks like a mistake now but if they traded him after 2023, the deal wouldn't have been that great then either. You don't think Getz should've cared about that. I think that's fantasy land. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 https://sny.tv/articles/mets-discussing-mark-vientos-in-trade-talks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 27 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: Agreed on this. I think you're too fixated on the reason why Getz was hired. He was hired because Reinsdorf is cheap and couldn't be bothered to go outside the organization. I'm guessing they just thought they could trade him for similar value later. That obviously looks like a mistake now but if they traded him after 2023, the deal wouldn't have been that great then either. You don't think Getz should've cared about that. I think that's fantasy land. Definitely the most painful part about that offseason though is it was a terrible time to trade Cease (there was a ton of top pitchers being dangled, esp. by milwaukee) but a great time to trade Robert (teams were starved for some top impact bats). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 26 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: Agreed on this. I think you're too fixated on the reason why Getz was hired. He was hired because Reinsdorf is cheap and couldn't be bothered to go outside the organization. I'm guessing they just thought they could trade him for similar value later. That obviously looks like a mistake now but if they traded him after 2023, the deal wouldn't have been that great then either. You don't think Getz should've cared about that. I think that's fantasy land. This is absurd. You are basically telling me that Robert had to have his value depreciate so that they could trade him at some sort of a fair price, knowing fully well that means risking his historically bad health, along with the whispered work ethic and coachability factors that keep being whispered about by those in the know, coming into play. What exactly was going to change in six months that all of the sudden that made a trade for Robert then a proper "value" for him. If teams weren't going to offer enough at 4 years, why would waiting six months for them to hopefully be offering the same thing in six months, but now with six months of depreciation to his value make it worth while to trade him because now that is proper "value" a sane thought. If it is the best offer you are going to get, why the heck wouldn't you take it? There is zero chance that the offers were going to go UP from him having a huge breakout year and full health for the time in his career. Speaking of "value" in some sort of abstract, with literally no evidence backing it up, versus his absolute value being almost certainly never going to be higher than it was in 2023 because of the factors that I keep mentioning, and keep being ignored seems like missing the forest for the trees. Rick Hahn was able to get a huge deal for Adam Eaton specifically, who was WAY less of a player with four years remaining on his deal. Chris Sale brought a much bigger "value" return as a more established player. Why wasn't it possible to get something along the Eaton to Sale lines in terms of a return for Luis Robert when we have seen it happen before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 15 minutes ago, bmags said: Definitely the most painful part about that offseason though is it was a terrible time to trade Cease (there was a ton of top pitchers being dangled, esp. by milwaukee) but a great time to trade Robert (teams were starved for some top impact bats). Cease being a great example of taking what is out there for a depreciated asset versus selling at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Cease being a great example of taking what is out there for a depreciated asset versus selling at the top. God that trade sucked 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 20 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said: https://sny.tv/articles/mets-discussing-mark-vientos-in-trade-talks Can’t wait for Sox fans to think it was bad trade, yet every other fan base can’t believe they got him for 2 months of Luis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 24 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: This is absurd. You are basically telling me that Robert had to have his value depreciate so that they could trade him at some sort of a fair price, knowing fully well that means risking his historically bad health, along with the whispered work ethic and coachability factors that keep being whispered about by those in the know, coming into play. What exactly was going to change in six months that all of the sudden that made a trade for Robert then a proper "value" for him. If teams weren't going to offer enough at 4 years, why would waiting six months for them to hopefully be offering the same thing in six months, but now with six months of depreciation to his value make it worth while to trade him because now that is proper "value" a sane thought. If it is the best offer you are going to get, why the heck wouldn't you take it? There is zero chance that the offers were going to go UP from him having a huge breakout year and full health for the time in his career. Speaking of "value" in some sort of abstract, with literally no evidence backing it up, versus his absolute value being almost certainly never going to be higher than it was in 2023 because of the factors that I keep mentioning, and keep being ignored seems like missing the forest for the trees. Rick Hahn was able to get a huge deal for Adam Eaton specifically, who was WAY less of a player with four years remaining on his deal. Chris Sale brought a much bigger "value" return as a more established player. Why wasn't it possible to get something along the Eaton to Sale lines in terms of a return for Luis Robert when we have seen it happen before? We just don't agree. I'll drop it because I'll never agree with the alternate thought process. Chris Getz has done some things wrong. Not trading Luis Robert in the winter of 2023 just wasn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: We just don't agree. I'll drop it because I'll never agree with the alternate thought process. Chris Getz has done some things wrong. Not trading Luis Robert in the winter of 2023 just wasn't one of them. It would be nice if you could actually articulate why, other than this wasn't a mistake because "value". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.