PDA

View Full Version : Rick Hahn ready to deal pitching for a bat?


Fastball23
10-29-2013, 02:47 PM
MLB Network Radio ‏@MLBNetworkRadio 25m (https://twitter.com/MLBNetworkRadio/status/395268719724609536)
#WhiteSox (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WhiteSox&src=hash) GM Rich Hahn would consider trading a pitcher for a bat - MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM. AUDIO: http://soundcloud.com/siriusxmsports/white-sox-gm-rich-hahn-would (http://soundcloud.com/siriusxmsports/white-sox-gm-rich-hahn-would )


I'd love to make a trade for a star 3B.

blandman
10-29-2013, 03:32 PM
Ryan Zimmerman would probably be available, but I'm not sure if he'll hold up at third. There's not a ton available at that position. Best move for the short term might be moving Beckham back there.

kittle42
10-29-2013, 03:44 PM
Ryan Zimmerman would probably be available, but I'm not sure if he'll hold up at third. There's not a ton available at that position. Best move for the short term might be moving Beckham back there.

Zimmerman's defense really fell off this season, but that's a nice, consistent, above-average bat there.

Noneck
10-29-2013, 07:37 PM
No way the Sox pick up Zimmerman and 90M through 2019.

Fastball23
10-30-2013, 08:31 AM
I'd sent Santiago to the Jays for Lawrie

SephClone89
10-30-2013, 08:37 AM
Sale for Trout.

Fastball23
10-30-2013, 08:53 AM
My dream player for the Sox to add would be Stanton

kittle42
10-30-2013, 09:47 AM
This thread degenerated quickly. But don't worry - all these players can be yours in MLB 2K14.

aryzner
10-30-2013, 10:06 AM
This thread degenerated quickly. But don't worry - all these players can be yours in MLB 2K14.

The 2K series is awful. But if you're saying MLB 14: The Show, now we're talking!:D:

doublem23
10-30-2013, 10:07 AM
This thread degenerated quickly. But don't worry - all these players can be yours in MLB 2K14.

While we're dreaming, if someone has a time machine, please go back to 1951 and kidnap Willie Mays, thanks

kittle42
10-30-2013, 10:28 AM
My dream player on the Sox is Clayton Kershaw.

My dream player on the Sox is Miguel Cabrera.

My dream player on the Sox is Mike Trout.

My realistic player on the Sox is Eric Chavez.

doublem23
10-30-2013, 10:54 AM
My realistic player on the Sox is Eric Chavez.

At this point, I would still be pretty happy with that

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2013, 11:36 AM
My dream player on the Sox is Clayton Kershaw. (Chris Sale ... not far off)

My dream player on the Sox is Miguel Cabrera (Jose Abreu ... eh, maybe in a few years).

My dream player on the Sox is Mike Trout (uh, Garcia? anyone? no).

My realistic player on the Sox is Eric Chavez (Better than Keppispie).

You're almost there!

cards press box
10-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Anyone else think that the Sox and Angels are a good match for a trade? In an attempt to get pitching help, L.A. will probably make some hitters available, most likely Peter Bourjos, Howie Kendrick and/or Mark Trumbo.

What could a package of a Reed, Santiago and DeAza get in return from L.A.?

doublem23
10-30-2013, 12:11 PM
Anyone else think that the Sox and Angels are a good match for a trade? In an attempt to get pitching help, L.A. will probably make some hitters available, most likely Peter Bourjos, Howie Kendrick and/or Mark Trumbo.

What could a package of a Reed, Santiago and DeAza get in return from L.A.?

Not sure how that package would be viewed, but the Angels have reportedly made Trumbo and Bourjos available..

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2013-10-29/mlb-trade-rumors-angels-mark-trumbo-peter-bourjos

Frankly I like Bourjos more than Trumbo now that the Sox have acquired Abreu. Not sure if Trumbo is going to stick in the corner OF much longer and frankly, his track record to this point has been a poor man's pre-White Sox Adam Dunn... It would be nice to have a real CF again.

blandman
10-30-2013, 12:40 PM
Not sure how that package would be viewed, but the Angels have reportedly made Trumbo and Bourjos available..

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2013-10-29/mlb-trade-rumors-angels-mark-trumbo-peter-bourjos

Frankly I like Bourjos more than Trumbo now that the Sox have acquired Abreu. Not sure if Trumbo is going to stick in the corner OF much longer and frankly, his track record to this point has been a poor man's pre-White Sox Adam Dunn... It would be nice to have a real CF again.


Bourjos is pretty league average/slightly below with the stick. If it's a move to play defense and help the pitching develop, that's good. But he's not the long term solution by any means.

getonbckthr
10-30-2013, 01:04 PM
Bourjos is pretty league average/slightly below with the stick. If it's a move to play defense and help the pitching develop, that's good. But he's not the long term solution by any means.

He's only had over 200 PA's once in his 4 year career and batted .270. Small sample size.

kittle42
10-30-2013, 01:24 PM
He's only had over 200 PA's once in his 4 year career and batted .270. Small sample size.

Perhaps because he is below average. Those players tend to play less.

DSpivack
10-30-2013, 01:30 PM
Sale for Trout.

Rainbow trout is on sale somewhere? Or perhaps even Rocky Mountain Trout?

Yum!

KRS1
10-30-2013, 01:30 PM
Trading one of our lefties not named Sale and extras for C/3B security would be clutch, but I'll take upgrades almost anywhere on the diamond.

Domeshot17
10-30-2013, 01:31 PM
Name I expect to see in Black and White next year: Andre Either

Over By There
10-30-2013, 01:40 PM
It's Rockabilly season, y'all!

doublem23
10-30-2013, 01:58 PM
Perhaps because he is below average. Those players tend to play less.

I mean, I don't see Bourjos as any kind of world beater, but in his defense, the Angels have had a plethora of high priced, veteran OF for seemingly ever now, so it's not like he's had a lot of chances to break through, either.

But I like his defense and I like his speed, two things that this team has sorely lacked in CF and in the lineup. Even if he isn't an everyday player, he potentially can split time with De Aza so he doesn't break down as he has the last couple of years he's been asked to play everyday. Of course, that would also require a manager with some creativity, which I am not sure we have.

blandman
10-30-2013, 01:58 PM
Name I expect to see in Black and White next year: Andre Either

I'm going to agree with you, but only if we don't trade for Matt Kemp instead.

SoxSpeed22
10-30-2013, 02:02 PM
I would prefer a catcher, second baseman or third baseman. We've got arms to work with.
I think it would be unwise to take on Ethier's contract.

ZombieRob
10-30-2013, 02:15 PM
Name I expect to see in Black and White next year: Andre Either
good call


http://www.lonestarball.com/2013/10/14/4835480/matt-kemp-andre-ethier-reportedly-will-be-available-this-offseason

Noneck
10-30-2013, 03:35 PM
My dream player on the Sox is Clayton Kershaw.

My dream player on the Sox is Miguel Cabrera.

My dream player on the Sox is Mike Trout.

My realistic player on the Sox is Eric Chavez.

My dream is to have players to get players like this.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-31-2013, 10:08 PM
Name I expect to see in Black and White next year: Andre Either

Ethier is 32 and has $70 million left on his contract. I can't see the Sox interested in rebuilding with him, especially if they have to give up young pitching to get him. If they want to Danks straight up, maybe that makes some sense.

doublem23
10-31-2013, 10:14 PM
Ethier is 32 and has $70 million left on his contract. I can't see the Sox interested in rebuilding with him, especially if they have to give up young pitching to get him. If they want to Danks straight up, maybe that makes some sense.

Ethier's contract is definitely prohibitive, but if there is one team in the league that has recently shown money is not an obstacle to impede their plans, it's the Dodgers.

Whether or not Andre comes here, I have no doubt the Dodgers will deal him this off-season, and likely have to pick up quite a bit of his remaining money.

HomeFish
10-31-2013, 10:15 PM
I would be shocked if the Nationals traded Zimmerman. He's still the face of the team and a fan favorite. He's also unlikely to be a third baseman for much longer, the general feeling in DC is that he will be moved to first base in the near future.

Tragg
10-31-2013, 10:39 PM
I mean, I don't see Bourjos as any kind of world beater, but in his defense, the Angels have had a plethora of high priced, veteran OF for seemingly ever now, so it's not like he's had a lot of chances to break through, either.

But I like his defense and I like his speed, two things that this team has sorely lacked in CF and in the lineup. Even if he isn't an everyday player, he potentially can split time with De Aza so he doesn't break down as he has the last couple of years he's been asked to play everyday. Of course, that would also require a manager with some creativity, which I am not sure we have.

We shouldn't give up a quality pitcher to get a no-hit OF

cws05champ
11-01-2013, 08:36 AM
Name I expect to see in Black and White next year: Andre Either
Where is he gonna play?? Unless we get rid of Viciedo or De Aza....

Eithier: 482 AB's .273/.360/.423 12 HR, 52 RBI
Viciedo: 441 AB's .265/.304/.426 14 HR, 56 RBI

I just don't see the point in taking on ANY salary of Eithier when we have a similar player in Viciedo already in the fold.

Also, NO on Trumbo...he can't play defense and profiles as a 1B down the line. Bourjos has exactly ONE season with more than 200 AB's, so you just can't give up anything of significant value for him. He provides great defense but is nothing more than a part time OF that will play 2-3 times a week and be a defensive replacement. Ask yourself if he will give you that much more than Jordan Danks gives us right now.

Domeshot17
11-01-2013, 08:53 AM
Where is he gonna play?? Unless we get rid of Viciedo or De Aza....

Eithier: 482 AB's .273/.360/.423 12 HR, 52 RBI
Viciedo: 441 AB's .265/.304/.426 14 HR, 56 RBI

I just don't see the point in taking on ANY salary of Eithier when we have a similar player in Viciedo already in the fold.

Also, NO on Trumbo...he can't play defense and profiles as a 1B down the line. Bourjos has exactly ONE season with more than 200 AB's, so you just can't give up anything of significant value for him. He provides great defense but is nothing more than a part time OF that will play 2-3 times a week and be a defensive replacement. Ask yourself if he will give you that much more than Jordan Danks gives us right now.

Um.... are you serious? Either had an OPS 60 points higher and was a 4 WAR player 2 years ago and a 3 WAR player last year. Tank? 0.9 WAR 2 years ago and 0.1 WAR last year

to put this in another light, Either WOULD HAVE BEEN OUR BEST PLAYER 2 YEARS IN A ROW... and its really not that close!

cws05champ
11-01-2013, 09:55 AM
Um.... are you serious? Either had an OPS 60 points higher and was a 4 WAR player 2 years ago and a 3 WAR player last year. Tank? 0.9 WAR 2 years ago and 0.1 WAR last year

to put this in another light, Either WOULD HAVE BEEN OUR BEST PLAYER 2 YEARS IN A ROW... and its really not that close!

Look at the money owed and the age of the players though. Either is 32 years old and is owed a minimum of $69M over the next 4 years through 2017. Viciedo (24) is still under team control through 2017 and will probably be owed an estimate of only $3.5M this year.

Is it worth this marginal upgrade in OBP, which is where the difference in OPS was? If I'm a GM I'm not going to pay for what a players WAR was a year or two years ago, but his potential WAR going forward. And I'll take a chance on Viciedo's years 25-28 over Either's years 32-35.

blandman
11-01-2013, 10:33 AM
Look at the money owed and the age of the players though. Either is 32 years old and is owed a minimum of $69M over the next 4 years through 2017. Viciedo (24) is still under team control through 2017 and will probably be owed an estimate of only $3.5M this year.



Anyone else in the system is still under contract too, should we just throw anything in the outfield then?

Either at any dollar amount is a better option than Viciedo for free. And I'm not even an Either fan. You're right, he is overpaid. But he's a useful piece and Viciedo is not. Hell, you could pickup Either to make things not so bad in the short term and trade him high if someone's desperate for an outfielder.

Domeshot17
11-01-2013, 11:07 AM
Anyone else in the system is still under contract too, should we just throw anything in the outfield then?

Either at any dollar amount is a better option than Viciedo for free. And I'm not even an Either fan. You're right, he is overpaid. But he's a useful piece and Viciedo is not. Hell, you could pickup Either to make things not so bad in the short term and trade him high if someone's desperate for an outfielder.

I also think the Dodgers are going to be forced to eat some of that money. Either at 50-70% of his current salary > Tank.

I also think Either would get a nice jump in stats based on the ballparks.

soxnut1018
11-01-2013, 11:08 AM
Is it worth this marginal upgrade in OBP, which is where the difference in OPS was? If I'm a GM I'm not going to pay for what a players WAR was a year or two years ago, but his potential WAR going forward. And I'll take a chance on Viciedo's years 25-28 over Either's years 32-35.

The difference between .304 and .360 is not marginal.

blandman
11-01-2013, 11:36 AM
The difference between .304 and .360 is not marginal.

I know, right? We're talking about a difference of being amongst the worst in the league and the best. You couldn't ask for a more better example of how one player is leaps and bounds better than another.

Tragg
11-01-2013, 05:27 PM
I see the As didn't pick up Chris Young's option. Can he still play top level defense?
It's got to start with improving the defense of this team.

KRS1
11-01-2013, 06:19 PM
I see the As didn't pick up Chris Young's option. Can he still play top level defense?
It's got to start with improving the defense of this team.
Yes, but he's a total jamoke offensively and exactly what we don't need more of in our lineup. Unless you're a catcher, you should ride the pine in the bigs with that skillset.

blandman
11-01-2013, 07:20 PM
Yes, but he's a total jamoke offensively and exactly what we don't need more of in our lineup. Unless you're a catcher, you should ride the pine in the bigs with that skillset.

For a rebuilding team that needs to focus on development, the only reason not to get a veteran, defensive CF is because you're developing your CF of the future on the major league club. Please designate that player, I don't see him on the roster or available to us by other means.

KRS1
11-01-2013, 07:44 PM
For a rebuilding team that needs to focus on development, the only reason not to get a veteran, defensive CF is because you're developing your CF of the future on the major league club. Please designate that player, I don't see him on the roster or available to us by other means.
There's a lot of reasons not to sign a player beyond your myopic prescription answers. For example, they may just suck at the plate and wouldn't help a team that already has a terrible lineup. I'd rather put up with De Aza's D than watch Young strike out every other time he doesn't pop the ball up to the infield.

blandman
11-01-2013, 07:51 PM
There's a lot of reasons not to sign a player beyond your myopic prescription answers. For example, they may just suck at the plate and wouldn't help a team that already has a terrible lineup. I'd rather put up with De Aza's D than watch Young strike out every other time he doesn't pop the ball up to the infield.

Can we save the 2014 White Sox championship talk until after they pick up the requisite 22 other players not currently in our system required to accomplish that feat? I know you find anything short of that near-sighted, but, gosh darn it, I'm a sucker for reality.

KRS1
11-01-2013, 08:05 PM
Can we save the 2014 White Sox championship talk until after they pick up the requisite 22 other players not currently in our system required to accomplish that feat? I know you find anything short of that near-sighted, but, gosh darn it, I'm a sucker for reality.
What the crap? Seriously? Because I don't want a player who would actually manage to make one of the worst lineups in baseball - EVEN WORSE - I'm now a delusional dreamer?

Brian26
11-01-2013, 08:39 PM
Can we save the 2014 White Sox championship talk until after they pick up the requisite 22 other players not currently in our system required to accomplish that feat? I know you find anything short of that near-sighted, but, gosh darn it, I'm a sucker for reality.

The Sox only have three players worth keeping and need to replace 22 in order to win a championship? Really? These hyperbolic statements are beyond silly.

doublem23
11-01-2013, 11:27 PM
What the crap? Seriously? Because I don't want a player who would actually manage to make one of the worst lineups in baseball - EVEN WORSE - I'm now a delusional dreamer?

Young's numbers plummeted coming to Oakland which is probably the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball by quite a mile. While never great, he was always at least a serviceable hitter in Arizona and if he still can bring the D, he can help split time with De Aza. I am convinced for the interim, we need to find someone to take some at bats from De Aza in CF, he's just too brittle to play there 150 games or so.

The Sox minor league system is pretty bare, but most of our better prospects are outfielders, so if there's one area the team should be going for veteran, stopgap players, it's there. Trayce Thompson may be ready for a September call up next year. Brandon Jacobs is in AA. Hawkins still has a long way to go, but he's still probably our system's highest ceiling player. The Sox IF is pretty rough, we only have 1 position locked down for years (1B with Abreu).

KRS1
11-02-2013, 12:00 AM
While never great, he was always at least a serviceable hitter in Arizona
The long running joke surrounding his uncanny ability to SO or IF popup with RISP was well-earned. The guy was a 239/318/437 career hitter in a hitters park in the NL who battled Mark Reynolds for the most ridiculously embarrassing ABs in the West. Watching him play down here for six seasons tells me his AL dropoff was no fluke.

WhiteSox5187
11-02-2013, 12:01 AM
The Sox only have three players worth keeping and need to replace 22 in order to win a championship? Really? These hyperbolic statements are beyond silly.

Well...other than Sale, Quintana, Garcia and now Abreu, who are your absolute keepers? Santiago, maybe? Danks? I'm sure I am forgetting a couple but it's not like the White Sox have much more than five players worth keeping.

Brian26
11-02-2013, 05:59 AM
Well...other than Sale, Quintana, Garcia and now Abreu, who are your absolute keepers? Santiago, maybe? Danks? I'm sure I am forgetting a couple but it's not like the White Sox have much more than five players worth keeping.

My point is that the Sox dont have to replace everyone on the roster. They only need to overhaul certain spots. For example, if they find the right catcher, there is no reason to think Flowers cannot be a competent backup. Even the 2005 team had guys like Marte, Widger, Timo Perez, etc. They dont need 22 new players. In reality, they could probably transform the team with seven new guys strategically and with a little luck.

Noneck
11-02-2013, 09:17 AM
In reality, they could probably transform the team with seven new guys strategically and with a little luck.


I agree but 7 may as well be 22 when you have so little to get these 7. In order to get the 7 they will have give up some keepers. Its a tough situation to solve.

Tragg
11-02-2013, 10:07 AM
I agree but 7 may as well be 22 when you have so little to get these 7. In order to get the 7 they will have give up some keepers. Its a tough situation to solve.

Agree...to get themselves 7, they're going to have to thin out starting pitching, which isn't that great to begin with. (it's good, but we don't have that many of them).
But, as happens every year, a month or so after the season, I have caught the fever again and think we aren't that far away. We'll see.

blandman
11-02-2013, 03:46 PM
I agree but 7 may as well be 22 when you have so little to get these 7. In order to get the 7 they will have give up some keepers. Its a tough situation to solve.

Agree...to get themselves 7, they're going to have to thin out starting pitching, which isn't that great to begin with. (it's good, but we don't have that many of them).
But, as happens every year, a month or so after the season, I have caught the fever again and think we aren't that far away. We'll see.

Yup...And they'd also have to be a pretty damn magnificent 7. There's Cano, and maybe Ellsbury out there for that route. But that's not happening so saying you can change the team in 7 players means nothing because it's actually not possible. In a fantasy realm where we can draft 7 players off other rosters? Sure, we'll compete. But reality is the signings we make are either for three years from now or filler to help the young players along. That's not been short-sighted, as the original poster said. That's being realistic. Sorry that reality is that we're not close. But it doesn't make it not reality. Signing Young would be a good move.

Brian26
11-02-2013, 04:22 PM
Yup...And they'd also have to be a pretty damn magnificent 7. There's Cano, and maybe Ellsbury out there for that route. But that's not happening so saying you can change the team in 7 players means nothing because it's actually not possible. In a fantasy realm where we can draft 7 players off other rosters? Sure, we'll compete. But reality is the signings we make are either for three years from now or filler to help the young players along. That's not been short-sighted, as the original poster said. That's being realistic. Sorry that reality is that we're not close. But it doesn't make it not reality.

The Sox don't need to replace 22 players on their current 25-man roster in order to win a championship. They also don't need seven "magnificent" players. I'm not saying this with my head in the clouds, but six-to-eight strategic moves, with luck and good health, puts them in a really good position when you have Sale anchoring the pitching staff and two good young bats in Garcia and Abreu batting 3rd and 4th. I recall people here one year ago mocking the Steven Drew and Gomes moves. They need upgrades in several areas, but to say the entire rotation, front end of the bullpen and the entire infield need to be wiped out is misguided.

You are presenting strawman arguments to defend your original statement, which, within the context of the discussion, was intended to say the Sox need 22 *better* players than they have now. The intent and context was not that the Sox need to use many of their current players to make trades for other players. You're coming up with that rationale after the fact.

blandman
11-02-2013, 04:56 PM
The Sox don't need to replace 22 players on their current 25-man roster in order to win a championship. They also don't need seven "magnificent" players. I'm not saying this with my head in the clouds, but six-to-eight strategic moves, with luck and good health, puts them in a really good position when you have Sale anchoring the pitching staff and two good young bats in Garcia and Abreu batting 3rd and 4th. I recall people here one year ago mocking the Steven Drew and Gomes moves. They need upgrades in several areas, but to say the entire rotation, front end of the bullpen and the entire infield need to be wiped out is misguided.

You are presenting strawman arguments to defend your original statement, which, within the context of the discussion, was intended to say the Sox need 22 *better* players than they have now. The intent and context was not that the Sox need to use many of their current players to make trades for other players. You're coming up with that rationale after the fact.

I'm glad you're able to see into my mind and tell me what I meant.

My original statement was meant to be over the top/tongue in cheek because the OP's statement was way over the top in the other direction, calling my support of a move to pickup a defensive specialist to help our young guys along myopic. He's the one that should be nailed to the cross. That's just plain lunacy.

That said - I vehemently disagree that there are 7 "moving pieces" moves that will turn this team into a world series contender. I downright think that's impossible.

How many players on the end of year roster were league average offensively and defensively? How many pitchers that were left didn't start having the results catch up to their ability? I'm not going to say that MAYBE some of the young guys in the system aren't pieces, but you can't just up and count on that either. The number of players that aren't in our system that'll be on our next world championship caliber roster is a hell of a lot closer to 22 than it is to 7. Hell...that number is probably in the 18 - 20 range. The only way 7 trades is going to win us a title is with an inordinate amount of luck. Because, given our division, we'd have to have a million things go right for us and wrong for others just to get into the playoffs.

Brian26
11-02-2013, 05:18 PM
I'm glad you're able to see into my mind and tell me what I meant.

The context of the discussion defined your statement.

My original statement was meant to be over the top/tongue in cheek


Ok, my point is proven then. Please try not to be so dramatic and hyperbolic, as it doesn't assist your debate style.

blandman
11-02-2013, 05:32 PM
Ok, my point is proven then. Please try not to be so dramatic and hyperbolic, as it doesn't assist your debate style.

I was trying to be an ass, because I thought the original poster was doing the same. :tongue:

KRS1
11-02-2013, 05:35 PM
My original statement was meant to be over the top/tongue in cheek because the OP's statement was way over the top in the other direction, calling my support of a move to pickup a defensive specialist to help our young guys along myopic. He's the one that should be nailed to the cross. That's just plain lunacy.


Signing another SO per game CF who consistently hit in the low 200s against inferior NL pitching (in his prime) doesn't help anyone or anything "along," regardless of his defense. It's a completely lateral move from the universally tarred Jordan Danks.

blandman
11-02-2013, 05:37 PM
Signing another SO per game CF who consistently hit in the low 200s against inferior NL pitching (in his prime) doesn't help anyone or anything "along," regardless of his defense. It's a completely lateral move from the universally tarred Jordan Danks.

Except Danks isn't as good a defender, isn't a veteran, and doesn't have any pop or any chance to have it.

KRS1
11-02-2013, 05:38 PM
I was trying to be an ass, because I thought the original poster was doing the same. :tongue:
I wasn't trying to be an ass, just stating the truth after watching Chris Young suck for the Dbacks for the better part of a decade. There might be some who have watched more of him than me, here, and I can only imagine they would agree with my assessment of his game. I'd rather spend any spare change on actual upgrades, not lateral moves for a fourth OF.

KRS1
11-02-2013, 05:44 PM
Except Danks isn't as good a defender, isn't a veteran, and doesn't have any pop or any chance to have it.
Four years ago he wasn't, today I'd just as quickly trust Danks to cover CF as I would Young. Prorate Danks' season to Young's and you have virtually identical power numbers. I'm sure most would argue the big ballpark Young played in affected his HR number, but then you have to concede the doubles Danks missed out on relatively. Veterans are overrated - especially when they suck.

Brian26
11-02-2013, 05:58 PM
I was trying to be an ass, because I thought the original poster was doing the same. :tongue:

Quit blaming everything on the original poster. Nobody is making you act like a fool. You control your own actions.

SoxSpeed22
11-02-2013, 06:36 PM
I think trades will happen, but I think they are going to be more like the buy-low type of deals we have seen before. I don't think we have the ammo to make a big splash. Besides, we already made a pretty big one with Abreu.
On a side-note, Simon Castro was outrighted to AAA today, so he might be the first one to go. I would like to sign Edward Mujica, unless he gets closer money.

blandman
11-02-2013, 06:48 PM
Quit blaming everything on the original poster. Nobody is making you act like a fool. You control your own actions.

I don't feel my actions were unwarranted, nor is it as big a deal as you're making it out to be. You only took it be to serious because it isn't THAT far off of the truth of the situation. But, yes, I was trying to be a little over the top because I thought it was over the top to be called myopic in scope over wanting a defensive veteran to help the team along. That you haven't even looked at that really makes it difficult to believe that I'm not being targeted/overly scrutinized. I had every right to react the way I did, and to have to defend it seems pretty stupid, IMO. The statement wasn't even THAT unreasonable. Some posters defended it!

SCCWS
11-03-2013, 09:14 AM
A few thoughts on the roster:

1. Red Sox declined option on Matt Thornton. I think he may be all done.

2. I see a lot of comparisons to Red Sox last to first. Red Sox started w a core group of Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia, Ortiz. Middlebrooks showed promise coming off his rookie year. That was pretty much it.

3. They had Lackey and Ellsbury coming back from injuries and both had very solid seasons.

4. They added Gomes, Ross, Carp, Napoli, Dempster, Victorino, Drew and Uehara. Overall that group produced although Gomes despite late season heroics was basically a 4th outfielder.

So the Red Sox overall had a lot of things fall into place. They went into spring training w 2 closers and both ended up on DL for season. But Uehara , who they got as a set-up becomes a dominant closer at 38. Lackey and ellsbury really bounce back from injuries. Middlebrooks tanks but they bring up Inglesias and he hits .320 for 4 months. A guy who hit .250 at AAA for 2 years. Then Buccholz goes down and they trade him for Peavy who filled in as a starter.

So they certainly started w a better core group than the White Sox have but they got solid years from a lot of guys that were not star players.

mzh
11-03-2013, 11:47 AM
A few thoughts on the roster:

1. Red Sox declined option on Matt Thornton. I think he may be all done.

2. I see a lot of comparisons to Red Sox last to first. Red Sox started w a core group of Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia, Ortiz. Middlebrooks showed promise coming off his rookie year. That was pretty much it.

3. They had Lackey and Ellsbury coming back from injuries and both had very solid seasons.

4. They added Gomes, Ross, Carp, Napoli, Dempster, Victorino, Drew and Uehara. Overall that group produced although Gomes despite late season heroics was basically a 4th outfielder.

So the Red Sox overall had a lot of things fall into place. They went into spring training w 2 closers and both ended up on DL for season. But Uehara , who they got as a set-up becomes a dominant closer at 38. Lackey and ellsbury really bounce back from injuries. Middlebrooks tanks but they bring up Inglesias and he hits .320 for 4 months. A guy who hit .250 at AAA for 2 years. Then Buccholz goes down and they trade him for Peavy who filled in as a starter.

So they certainly started w a better core group than the White Sox have but they got solid years from a lot of guys that were not star players.
Yeah, this Red Sox team reminds me a bit of our 2005 squad if anything, not necessarily with the worst to first, but they caught lightning in a bottle and got career years out of a LOT of low risk, ordinary players. Especially in the bullpen. I see it being fairly difficult for them to repeat, even with kids like Bogaerts coming up.

TheVulture
11-04-2013, 11:30 AM
I'm not a huge fan of trading any of our starters that can realistically be expected to be tradeable. If your talking Danks that's another story, but Abreu and Garcia are already a good start to turning the offense around. Why not just sign another bat or two to fill out the lineup? Seems like the Sox have some money laying around for payroll. Get another bat good enough to bump Dunn down to 6th we could have the beginnings of a decent lineup.

blandman
11-04-2013, 05:57 PM
A few thoughts on the roster:

1. Red Sox declined option on Matt Thornton. I think he may be all done.

2. I see a lot of comparisons to Red Sox last to first. Red Sox started w a core group of Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia, Ortiz. Middlebrooks showed promise coming off his rookie year. That was pretty much it.

3. They had Lackey and Ellsbury coming back from injuries and both had very solid seasons.

4. They added Gomes, Ross, Carp, Napoli, Dempster, Victorino, Drew and Uehara. Overall that group produced although Gomes despite late season heroics was basically a 4th outfielder.

So the Red Sox overall had a lot of things fall into place. They went into spring training w 2 closers and both ended up on DL for season. But Uehara , who they got as a set-up becomes a dominant closer at 38. Lackey and ellsbury really bounce back from injuries. Middlebrooks tanks but they bring up Inglesias and he hits .320 for 4 months. A guy who hit .250 at AAA for 2 years. Then Buccholz goes down and they trade him for Peavy who filled in as a starter.

So they certainly started w a better core group than the White Sox have but they got solid years from a lot of guys that were not star players.

The Red Sox lineup was built around 4 guys (Ortiz, Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Napoli) capable of winning the MVP and others (like Victorino and Drew) who have been well above average players in their career. When you add the Gomes' and Inglesias' of the world to that roster, it does not have the same effect as when you add them to a roster that was last in runs and walks last year. It's completely the other end of the spectrum.

Tragg
11-04-2013, 06:15 PM
The Red Sox lineup was built around 4 guys (Ortiz, Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Napoli) capable of winning the MVP and others (like Victorino and Drew) who have been well above average players in their career. When you add the Gomes' and Inglesias' of the world to that roster, it does not have the same effect as when you add them to a roster that was last in runs and walks last year. It's completely the other end of the spectrum.

I'll go with that analysis. But when people say the Sox need 7 players, I believe it's implied that they are more along the Drew/Victorino variety v the Gomes/Inglesias. And Victorino and Drew are above average, but not "Well" above average. You can look at St Louis' hitters and that is an OBP machine that is "Well above average" practically cross the board, that we can never come close to matching. Now where 7 Victorinos gets us, I don't know. Unless Garcia and Abreu are all star hitters, we'll still have a long way to go.

blandman
11-04-2013, 06:37 PM
I'll go with that analysis. But when people say the Sox need 7 players, I believe it's implied that they are more along the Drew/Victorino variety v the Gomes/Inglesias. And Victorino and Drew are above average, but not "Well" above average. You can look at St Louis' hitters and that is an OBP machine that is "Well above average" practically cross the board, that we can never come close to matching. Now where 7 Victorinos gets us, I don't know. Unless Garcia and Abreu are all star hitters, we'll still have a long way to go.

I agree on all accounts. I also don't know where 7 Victorinos get us, but I'm not sure it's where we want to be unless, like you said, Garcia and Abreu are all-star hitters. And Victorinos make a LOT of money.