March 9Mar 9 3 minutes ago, WestEddy said: The original reporter also debunked his own story. He said Keaschul's name "came up". By all means, please link to anything that mentions a trade that could have been aborted. If Scott Merkin brought up Edward Quero's name in trporting a trade rumor and he wasn't dealt...the same thing would happen. Backtracking/cya.
March 9Mar 9 Author 3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: If Scott Merkin brought up Edward Quero's name in trporting a trade rumor and he wasn't dealt...the same thing would happen. Backtracking/cya. Again, please link to anything that implied more than his name "coming up". Of course he felt the need to clarify his reporting when people made it into something he clearly didn't report.
March 9Mar 9 3 hours ago, WestEddy said: Again, please link to anything that implied more than his name "coming up". Of course he felt the need to clarify his reporting when people made it into something he clearly didn't report. The "real truth" of the situation is never going to be publicly reported. https://puckettspond.com/posts/white-sox-saved-twins-terrible-trade-deadline-luke-keaschall Edited March 9Mar 9 by caulfield12
March 9Mar 9 10 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: Why do we think they weren’t willing to include money in a Robert trade when they turned around and took on money to get Sandlin? Because dumping Robert’s entire contract directly preceded Getz’s spending spree that occurred right after, including the Hicks/Sandlin trade. That wasn’t a coincidence. Edited March 9Mar 9 by WhiteSox2023
March 9Mar 9 Author 1 hour ago, caulfield12 said: The "real truth" of the situation is never going to be publicly reported. https://puckettspond.com/posts/white-sox-saved-twins-terrible-trade-deadline-luke-keaschall Sounds like this content-mill has the same, insane, unreported take that you want to believe. Congratulations.
March 9Mar 9 1 hour ago, WestEddy said: Sounds like this content-mill has the same, insane, unreported take that you want to believe. Congratulations. “Insane” sure… You must have missed every season from 2001 through 2020 and then 22 23 24 when the Twins absolutely owned the Sox. Except 2005/08… thanks to the Hahn kid White Out playoff coin toss win. And 2021. Shocked you don't want to take credit for Getz picking the exactly right player to target in trade for once. Edited March 9Mar 9 by caulfield12
March 9Mar 9 10 hours ago, caulfield12 said: Dan Hayes was the original reporter. How would the Twins' beat reporter name an actual top prospect in that system without solid inside information? Well I guess we helped the Twins letting Thome go...since Ozzie preferred the rotating DH/Kotsay. Then you have Ishbia abandoning Twins for Sox. Bad blood. 10 hours ago, WestEddy said: The original reporter also debunked his own story. He said Keaschul's name "came up". By all means, please link to anything that mentions a trade that could have been aborted. From what I understand, Twins and Sox talked about Fedde. Couldn’t agree on players. Twins wanted Sox to eat money and Sox needed Keashall to consider it. Twins weren’t interested.
March 9Mar 9 4 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: From what I understand, Twins and Sox talked about Fedde. Couldn’t agree on players. Twins wanted Sox to eat money and Sox needed Keashall to consider it. Twins weren’t interested. But where did the JR turning down the deal part come in...? Because it was the Twins or he wouldn't want to help them financially when he was trying to sway Ishbia into Sox orbit? Only from Dan Hayes reporting?
March 9Mar 9 8 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said: Because dumping Robert’s entire contract directly preceded Getz’s spending spree that occurred right after, including the Hicks/Sandlin trade. That wasn’t a coincidence. Um yeah, they turned around immediately redeployed the money they saved by dealing Robert. They could have ate part of Robert’s salary, but preferred to use their general budget to go buy Sandlin and the other free agents they ended up signing. If you’re angry about our the budget Getz has been given (which is totally fair), that’s very much a different claim than saying we were unwilling to eat part of Robert’s contract.
March 9Mar 9 53 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Um yeah, they turned around immediately redeployed the money they saved by dealing Robert. They could have ate part of Robert’s salary, but preferred to use their general budget to go buy Sandlin and the other free agents they ended up signing. If you’re angry about our the budget Getz has been given (which is totally fair), that’s very much a different claim than saying we were unwilling to eat part of Robert’s contract. They traded Robert to a team that doesn’t care about taking on money. Immediately after, all the additional moves were made. If Robert’s salary wasn’t fully dumped, I think it’s pretty safe to say that not all the following moves would have been made. This is why Robert likely wasn’t traded to a more frugal team like the Reds or Pirates that would have expected the Sox to include cash in a trade. Getz wouldn’t have free up enough money that he needed/wanted to spend. Edited March 9Mar 9 by WhiteSox2023
March 9Mar 9 Author 1 hour ago, WhiteSox2023 said: They traded Robert to a team that doesn’t care about taking on money. Immediately after, all the additional moves were made. If Robert’s salary wasn’t fully dumped, I think it’s pretty safe to say that not all the following moves would have been made. This is why Robert likely wasn’t traded to a more frugal team like the Reds or Pirates that would have expected the Sox to include cash in a trade. Getz wouldn’t have free up enough money that he needed/wanted to spend. And I've heard/read it surmised a few times that the return from the Pirates or Reds for eating money just didn't stand out from Acuña/Pauley.
March 9Mar 9 4 hours ago, caulfield12 said: But where did the JR turning down the deal part come in...? Because it was the Twins or he wouldn't want to help them financially when he was trying to sway Ishbia into Sox orbit? Only from Dan Hayes reporting? I’m not sure it was as simple as, “Sox don’t want to trade in division”: It was more nuanced than that. Twins wanted money, Sox liked Dodgers deal better than what Minnesota would actually do etc. 13 minutes ago, WestEddy said: And I've heard/read it surmised a few times that the return from the Pirates or Reds for eating money just didn't stand out from Acuña/Pauley. I’d heard the day before the trade happened that the Reds were offering Zach Maxwell straight up for Robert. No idea on $$.
March 9Mar 9 19 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: Why do we think they weren’t willing to include money in a Robert trade when they turned around and took on money to get Sandlin? Because they didn't include money in a Robert trade. And that was quite the monetary price for a non-top 100 (what I assume is) relief prospect...and a strange way to spend a limited budget.
March 9Mar 9 Author 52 minutes ago, GreenSox said: Because they didn't include money in a Robert trade. And that was quite the monetary price for a non-top 100 (what I assume is) relief prospect...and a strange way to spend a limited budget. The trade still isn't complete. It's been bandied about that If Paez looks clearly overmatched and they slip him through waivers, he could be one of the PTBNLs.
March 9Mar 9 3 minutes ago, WestEddy said: The trade still isn't complete. It's been bandied about that If Paez looks clearly overmatched and they slip him through waivers, he could be one of the PTBNLs. Meh.
March 9Mar 9 55 minutes ago, GreenSox said: Because they didn't include money in a Robert trade. And that was quite the monetary price for a non-top 100 (what I assume is) relief prospect...and a strange way to spend a limited budget. They have said they view Sandlin as a starter
March 9Mar 9 1 hour ago, GreenSox said: Because they didn't include money in a Robert trade. And that was quite the monetary price for a non-top 100 (what I assume is) relief prospect...and a strange way to spend a limited budget. They didn’t include money in a Robert trade because the rich ass Mets weren’t willing to offer us something of value for it. Should we have eaten a portion of the contract and still got the two pieces we did? The humorous part here is we took those savings and immediately redeployed them, including us buying a pitching prospect by taking a bad contract. Whether you think that was a good use of our limited resources, the reality is we took on money to get a prospect (and one that we like). which is what you guys are claiming we were unwilling to do with Robert.
March 9Mar 9 20 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said: They have said they view Sandlin as a starter Exactly, I’m all for question moves the front office made and no one has to like Sandlin specifically, but this entire argument about “not willing to eat money with Robert” is semantics when we are money by taking on Hicks.
March 9Mar 9 20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Exactly, I’m all for question moves the front office made and no one has to like Sandlin specifically, but this entire argument about “not willing to eat money with Robert” is semantics when we are money by taking on Hicks. So if the Sox weren’t able to trade Robert and dump his entire salary, do you think Getz still acquires Hicks and Sandlin?
March 9Mar 9 Author 16 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said: So if the Sox weren’t able to trade Robert and dump his entire salary, do you think Getz still acquires Hicks and Sandlin? Quite possibly not. It seems like they always had Acuña in their back pocket, tho.
March 9Mar 9 10 minutes ago, WestEddy said: Quite possibly not. It seems like they always had Acuña in their back pocket, tho. Agreed. Not going to argue that trade though. I have no idea who the Sox would have for CF right now if not for Acuna. Pereira I guess? Edited March 9Mar 9 by WhiteSox2023
March 9Mar 9 22 hours ago, WestEddy said: Any reporters that have discussed this said they thought the return didn't get much better sending money along with Robert. Revisionist historians still pushing the negative agenda lies. They got a decent prospect possibly just finding his MLB stroke and a pitcher. Why send money in the Robert trade ? Didnt they make 3 more moves after that $22M was taken off the books and they quickly spent it. Austin Hayes was one of the moves. Serathony Dominquez the other and the Hicks /Sandlin move. Between Acuna, Hays,Dominquez, Hicks and Sandlin, that's 2 future pieces and 4 of the 5 for immediate help if Acuna and Hicks can stick around long enough to make contributions to a better than 2025 team. Helped the OF offensively & defensively while the bullpen was also significantly upgraded as well. Convenient for those historians to forget the repurposing of that Robert salary which Getz said they'd do. He kept his word. Edited March 9Mar 9 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside
March 9Mar 9 2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said: So if the Sox weren’t able to trade Robert and dump his entire salary, do you think Getz still acquires Hicks and Sandlin? Here's the thing. The Sox putting short term money in 1 year/short term contracts instead of investing that money into better and/or more plentiful prospects isn't impressive. In fact it is short sighted coming off of yet another 100 loss season with no hopes of competition. Load me up with interesting guys with 6 to 7 years of control, vs. short term guys who will be long gone by the time this team is good again. Buy prospects, every single chance you get. That's long term planning.
March 9Mar 9 Author 9 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: Revisionist historians still pushing the negative agenda lies. They got a decent prospect possibly just finding his MLB stroke and a pitcher. Why send money in the Robert trade ? Didnt they make 3 more moves after that $22M was taken off the books and they quickly spent it. Austin Hayes was one of the moves. Serathony Dominquez the other and the Hicks /Sandlin move. Between Acuna, Hays,Dominquez, Hicks and Sandlin, that's 2 future pieces and 4 of the 5 for immediate help if Acuna and Hicks can stick around long enough to make contributions to a better than 2025 team. Helped the OF offensively & defensively while the bullpen was also significantly upgraded as well. Convenient for those historians to forget the repurposing of that Robert salary which Getz said they'd do. He kept his word. And Acuña was getting the Vargas treatment right after the trade. I think he's going to be a bit more than a light-hitting Leury Garcia.
March 10Mar 10 15 minutes ago, WestEddy said: And Acuña was getting the Vargas treatment right after the trade. I think he's going to be a bit more than a light-hitting Leury Garcia. Well Acuna never looked shell shocked and isolated in the dugout like Vargas after the Dodgers' trade. He's brimming with confidence. Edited March 10Mar 10 by caulfield12
.thumb.jpg.acbdc1097283affff104fdb503e5766f.jpg)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.