Jump to content
NCsoxfan

Tim Anderson

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 04:05 PM)
We have a very forgiving fanbase. The Shark trade on paper is a disaster right now with Semien performing and Phegs serviceable. Didn't we give up a third piece as well? Shark was a monumental colossal disaster even if the trade may have "made sense." A lot of us don't like giving up our "name" prospects in deals.

For example, if we were to trade Robertson and Frazier and Melky and Lawrie soon, I'd like to get back players just like Semien and Trayce plus more than that.

 

Chris Bassitt, who pitched well for them last year, struggled this year and has since gotten hurt.

 

Trayce Thompson, by the way, has 13 homers...not 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 06:31 PM)
It's more the fact that we were rebuilding and everything was going along fine until the 2014-15 offseason approached.

 

Then they got impatient and tried to rush forward, in the back of their minds certainly being aware they wouldn't have the financial resources to sustain an "all in" year unless EVERY MOVE THEY MADE TURNED OUT PERFECTLY.

 

While we might not be much better off record-wise, an infield of Semien at 3B/2B, Anderson at SS, Thompson in CF, Montas still in the system (and Saladino as super-sub/Zobrist lite rotating around at different positions)...that would be a lot more exciting to watch and have potential for future improvement. Also, a lot more athleticism.

 

Between Montas, Hansen, Fulmer, Adams and Jordan Stephens, we'd have enough pieces to fill the bullpen needs and back of the starting rotation. That team would also be much more affordable/cost-effective, providing payroll space for other fixes like the DH issue with Avi Garcia.

 

 

 

And yeah, I did say they pretty much needed to trade Semien because it was clear the organization had already given up on him and he wasn't likely to get another shot...so why not try to turn him into an asset to fill another need? It's not like any of us here can go out and hire individual coaches and bring them to USCF and force them on the White Sox front office to fix their own development and lack of patience with young player issues...(of course, for some reason, they fixate on other guys like Beckham, Flowers and Viciedo and give them way too much time, with Avi Garcia being the most currently example of that phenomenon.)

No. You said it was a trade that had to be made, and it wasn't clear the organization had given up on him. Nice spin. But a total lie.

 

If trading good players for prospects requires said prospects to be guys their organization has given up on, it would be another reason a total rebuild makes no sense.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 04:05 PM)
We have a very forgiving fanbase. The Shark trade on paper is a disaster right now with Semien performing and Phegs serviceable. Didn't we give up a third piece as well? Shark was a monumental colossal disaster even if the trade may have "made sense." A lot of us don't like giving up our "name" prospects in deals.

For example, if we were to trade Robertson and Frazier and Melky and Lawrie soon, I'd like to get back players just like Semien and Trayce plus more than that.

 

Chris Bassitt, who pitched well for them last year, struggled this year and has since gotten hurt.

 

Trayce Thompson, by the way, has 13 homers...not 11.

 

 

I've also noticed in retroactively talking about Shark, some are calling him an "innings eater," (like James Shields), some are calling him an ace or #2 starter. Some a 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 06:31 PM)
It's more the fact that we were rebuilding and everything was going along fine until the 2014-15 offseason approached.

 

Then they got impatient and tried to rush forward, in the back of their minds certainly being aware they wouldn't have the financial resources to sustain an "all in" year unless EVERY MOVE THEY MADE TURNED OUT PERFECTLY.

 

While we might not be much better off record-wise, an infield of Semien at 3B/2B, Anderson at SS, Thompson in CF, Montas still in the system (and Saladino as super-sub/Zobrist lite rotating around at different positions)...that would be a lot more exciting to watch and have potential for future improvement. Also, a lot more athleticism.

 

Between Montas, Hansen, Fulmer, Adams and Jordan Stephens, we'd have enough pieces to fill the bullpen needs and back of the starting rotation. That team would also be much more affordable/cost-effective, providing payroll space for other fixes like the DH issue with Avi Garcia.

 

 

 

And yeah, I did say they pretty much needed to trade Semien because it was clear the organization had already given up on him and he wasn't likely to get another shot...so why not try to turn him into an asset to fill another need? It's not like any of us here can go out and hire individual coaches and bring them to USCF and force them on the White Sox front office to fix their own development and lack of patience with young player issues...(of course, for some reason, they fixate on other guys like Beckham, Flowers and Viciedo and give them way too much time, with Avi Garcia being the most currently example of that phenomenon.)

 

Sox fans don't care about "exciting to watch".

 

Though I do like how you manage to slap the team both for too much time with young players, and not taking enough time with young players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 05:36 PM)
No. You said it was a trade that had to be made, and it wasn't clear the organization had given up on him. Nice spin. But a total lie.

 

You just had a couple of mods in this very same sequence of posts say the organization had clearly given up on him.

 

It's not just me. It's what the White Sox ALWAYS do. The same thing happened with Daniel Hudson after 3 starts. Micah Johnson got about 3 weeks. Carlos Sanchez got about half a season as well, despite being only 22 or 23. They give up on players too quickly or they play them 1-2 seasons too long when they can't believe they were so wrong in their talent evaluation (Beckham, Viciedo, Flowers, Avi Garcia). Somewhere in there is a middle ground that they can't seem to find, a sweet spot, where patience has to be met with results.

 

Marcus Semien had 300 career at-bats with the White Sox. That's essentially half a season. And then they decided he wasn't going to make it. So what's the point of not trading him at that point? They weren't willing to play him everyday, even though that's exactly what rebuilding teams do. That's exactly what Billy Beane did (see below).

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/188565220/as...lays-every-day/

 

But thanks for playing, Dick "Stalker" Allen

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 06:42 PM)
You just had a couple of mods in this very same sequence of posts say the organization had clearly given up on him.

 

It's not just me. It's what the White Sox ALWAYS do. The same thing happened with Daniel Hudson after 3 starts. Micah Johnson got about 3 weeks. Carlos Sanchez got about half a season as well, despite being only 22 or 23. They give up on players too quickly or they play them 1-2 seasons too long when they can't believe they were so wrong in their talent evaluation (Beckham, Viciedo, Flowers, Avi Garcia). Somewhere in there is a middle ground that they can't seem to find, a sweet spot, where patience has to be met with results.

 

Marcus Semien had 300 career at-bats with the White Sox. That's essentially half a season. And then they decided he wasn't going to make it. So what's the point of not trading him at that point? They weren't willing to play him everyday, even though that's exactly what rebuilding teams do. That's exactly what Billy Beane did (see below).

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/188565220/as...lays-every-day/

 

But thanks for playing, Dick "Stalker" Allen

Show me a post in the Shark trade thread where you said they have clearly given up on him? A year and a half later you are using it . I copy and pasted your no hindsight post . You are lying.

 

You have to give up something to get something. The White Sox had not given up on Semien. For you to use a line that was written today for what you where really thinking in December of 2014 is preposterous.

 

Not a stalker, just going to call you out for all of your lies. There are a lot more. We have Peavy, Semeienand you would have included any minor leaguer not named Momtas, Anderson or Hawkins. Ther was the blasting of The Paulino signing, where you said the move made too much sense. The White Sox should be in the business of more signings of the like You are a total BSer. Just admit once in a while you also had it wrong. It seemed to make sense to you at the time but for some reason it didn't work out instead of what kind of idiot makes a trade like this? Apparently someone like you.

You don't want to read the Shark trade thread. Your new lie would be totally exposed, plus your lack of hindsight determined Hahn and KW would be kings of Chicago if they could acquire Matt Kemp.

Don't complain about Avi getting time then Caulfraud.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When have you gone out and staked a position on a player?

 

It's easy to question others when you so rarely do that.

 

Ubaldo Jimenez? Gordon Beckham? John Danks?

 

 

Do I really need to write that "everyone knows how the White Sox operate when it comes to young players, that it's clear they have given up on Marcus Semien as an everyday player and might as well get something of value back for him?"

 

Once again, should every thread be bifurcated into 1) our own personal thoughts about a player or trade, 2) our anticipation of what the White Sox will actually do, 3) our own idea if we were running the White Sox, what they SHOULD or SHOULDN'T DO? Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.

 

In the end, I'll leave it up to "SoxTalk" land to make their own appraisals. None of us are being paid by the White Sox to make these decisions, anyway, so it doesn't really matter, does it? It's just for fun and entertainment.

 

If you think about ALL the time you've wasted trying to convince everyone that I'm this or that...wouldn't your energies have better been applied to "growing the White Sox fanbase" in Chicago by sponsoring an RBI or Jackie Robinson League team so that all those kids ended up cheering for the Sox in the future? Are you really going to change the minds of Balta, Greg775, Flash Tizzle, Thad Bosley, GreenSox or ANYONE else?

 

For the record, thanks in advance for your time and consideration in spending an inordinate amount of time delving into every single post someone has made!!! Flattering, in a way. Impressive diligence in your quest for righteousness.

 

I'll leave it like this. The current and prevailing message board defense of almost any move made by the Sox was "that it made sense or was logical enough at the time." If JR wants to support that type of thinking and ignore the team's record or lack of playoff appearances, that's really great. LOYAL. If he wants to end up with 18-21,000 fans per game despite never doing a total rebuild, and STILL having the worst TV ratings in all of MLB despite starting the season 23-10, he's more than welcome to enjoy that, since his team will still be worth $1 billion or more anyway, no matter how badly they mess things up.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 08:39 PM)
When have you gone out and staked a position on a player?

 

It's easy to question others when you so rarely do that.

 

Ubaldo Jimenez? Gordon Beckham? John Danks?

 

 

Do I really need to write that "everyone knows how the White Sox operate when it comes to young players, that it's clear they have given up on Marcus Semien as an everyday player and might as well get something of value back for him?"

 

Once again, should every thread be bifurcated into 1) our own personal thoughts about a player or trade, 2) our anticipation of what the White Sox will actually do, 3) our own idea if we were running the White Sox, what they SHOULD or SHOULDN'T DO? Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.

 

In the end, I'll leave it up to "SoxTalk" land to make their own appraisals. None of us are being paid by the White Sox to make these decisions, anyway, so it doesn't really matter, does it? It's just for fun and entertainment.

 

If you think about ALL the time you've wasted trying to convince everyone that I'm this or that...wouldn't your energies have better been applied to "growing the White Sox fanbase" in Chicago by sponsoring an RBI or Jackie Robinson League team so that all those kids ended up cheering for the Sox in the future? Are you really going to change the minds of Balta, Greg775, Flash Tizzle, Thad Bosley, GreenSox or ANYONE else?

 

For the record, thanks in advance for your time and consideration in spending an inordinate amount of time delving into every single post someone has made!!! Flattering, in a way. Impressive diligence in your quest for righteousness.

 

I'll leave it like this. The current and prevailing message board defense of almost any move made by the Sox was "that it made sense or was logical enough at the time." If JR wants to support that type of thinking and ignore the team's record or lack of playoff appearances, that's really great. LOYAL. If he wants to end up with 18-21,000 fans per game despite never doing a total rebuild, and STILL having the worst TV ratings in all of MLB despite starting the season 23-10, he's more than welcome to enjoy that, since his team will still be worth $1 billion or more anyway, no matter how badly they mess things up.

 

Just quit contradicting yourself. if you thought a move was good without hindsight, there is no need to hammer it endlessly if it doesn't work out.

 

If a trade had to be made, your words, then if it doesn't work out accept you were wrong as well. If signings like Paulino are what business the Sox should be in don't work out, don't blast Hahn 2 years later and act like you never stated that. If you really think Jake Peavy is a bum, when he re-signs, don't call it good news and write it frees up guys like Quintana to be traded for a 3B. Just like with Desmond who you said sign in June and then tried to hide behind the Hahn would never give up the draft pick so you are just trying to be realistic, just be honest and admit it. Besides you put it in with give Latos $10 million and Parra $8 million. 2 things Hahn would do either.

 

 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 08:39 PM)
Do I really need to write that "everyone knows how the White Sox operate when it comes to young players, that it's clear they have given up on Marcus Semien as an everyday player and might as well get something of value back for him?"

Or since you need to trade talent to get talent, the could afford to lose Semien because they had a player they liked better in Anderson right behind him. I think i like Anderson better too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with the assessment Anderson is the better SS and has MORE potential (at that particular position) than Semien. That's not the debate.

 

It's whether Semien could have played 2B or 3B....which would have preserved the longer window of contention. That clocked started ticking as soon as Frazier was brought on board, along with Melky's contract expiring.

 

Even if they didn't sign either player to an extension (freeing up $25-30 million), it's not going to be easy to fill those TWO holes in the free agency market in 2017-18. With how things are trending financially, you get two second tier FA's at overpriced rates or you really overpay for one superstar type (like Cespedes this year) and try to fight to fill in the other holes for a pittance.

 

I'm also not questioning what they gave up to acquire Lawrie. It was a risk worth taking, and nobody wanted to see Sanchez given the starting job, at least not many. (Now you can debate whether Saladino could hold down 2B and do it better than Lawrie, but there's not much evidence to support that...because Saladino's seeing favorable match-ups in his part-time work and Lawrie has already put up some quite strong WAR years at a young age at the big league level).

 

I guess we'll see how it all plays out....whether Saladino (as a starter/supersub), Semien, Sanchez, Thompson and Montas would have given them a better chance to win (or make further trades) than what they have right now. You can also argue that Phegley's bat would have come in quite handy this year.

 

 

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:36 PM)
I don't disagree with the assessment Anderson is the better SS and has MORE potential (at that particular position) than Semien. That's not the debate.

 

It's whether Semien could have played 2B or 3B....which would have preserved the longer window of contention. That clocked started ticking as soon as Frazier was brought on board, along with Melky's contract expiring.

 

Even if they didn't sign either player to an extension (freeing up $25-30 million), it's not going to be easy to fill those TWO holes in the free agency market in 2017-18. With how things are trending financially, you get two second tier FA's at overpriced rates or you really overpay for one superstar type (like Cespedes this year) and try to fight to fill in the other holes for a pittance.

 

I'm also not questioning what they gave up to acquire Lawrie. It was a risk worth taking, and nobody wanted to see Sanchez given the starting job, at least not many. (Now you can debate whether Saladino could hold down 2B and do it better than Lawrie, but there's not much evidence to support that...because Saladino's seeing favorable match-ups in his part-time work and Lawrie has already put up some quite strong WAR years at a young age at the big league level).

 

I guess we'll see how it all plays out....whether Saladino (as a starter/supersub), Semien, Sanchez, Thompson and Montas would have given them a better chance to win (or make further trades) than what they have right now. You can also argue that Phegley's bat would have come in quite handy this year.

I would still trade unproven prospects for proven MLB pitching. If the A's really wanted Semien, so be it. He was unproven and the Sox needed a RHP starter to go with Sale, Q and Rodon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:08 AM)
Because he got them a #2 starter.

 

You've said this a few times but I think the sentence needs to be longer. Something like, "He (and others) got them a #2 starter ( for 1 year)who pitched more like a 4 (who many people on this board were absolutely convinced would be extended).

 

So even if you were ok with giving up the prospects for a rental then he wasn't extended making it a double whammy of a bad trade. Somewhere in all that if you're cool with the prospects given up and cool with him not being extended then you qualify as a true blue , blind loyalty Sox fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:59 PM)
You've said this a few times but I think the sentence needs to be longer. Something like, "He (and others) got them a #2 starter ( for 1 year)who pitched more like a 4 (who many people on this board were absolutely convinced would be extended).

 

So even if you were ok with giving up the prospects for a rental then he wasn't extended making it a double whammy of a bad trade. Somewhere in all that if you're cool with the prospects given up and cool with him not being extended then you qualify as a true blue , blind loyalty Sox fan.

 

So if you have read this all, then you read the original post with the much longer explanation that included this, so there really isn't a need to write a post like that stuff wasn't addressed before. If you skipped that post, go back and read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:46 PM)
I would still trade unproven prospects for proven MLB pitching. If the A's really wanted Semien, so be it. He was unproven and the Sox needed a RHP starter to go with Sale, Q and Rodon.

 

In a trade you are targeting one of a couple of things, the best player or the highest ceiling. The Sox got the best player.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah - Wah Wah Wah - Wah Wah - Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah. Peanuts style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:22 PM)
In a trade you are targeting one of a couple of things, the best player or the highest ceiling. The Sox got the best player.

 

With Samardzija its just throwing away WAR from the 2016-2018 roster when they really had no chance of strong contention even with that surplus WAR in 2015. That same argument fails regarding holding onto Sale or Q until the last years of their contract because they "are the best players". The WAR they contribute to the team the next 3 years will effectively be wasted if ownership isn't serious about truly putting together a favorite to make the playoffs. Even if the WAR we acquire ultimately contributed half that of Sale, they will provide it at a time when it will benefit the team the most - when the team could be a division favorite 5-10 years from now and can use the saved cash to spend money to acquire a top free agent to become a World Series favorite. It also spreads around some of the risk in acquiring 4-5 prospects, since Sale is one pitch away from a season ending injury which will permanently affect his value.

 

TBH I'm not even convinced Sale has the temperament to be a great playoff pitcher should we get there. The self-induced implosions at times are concerning.

 

Sure they get the best player, but they never make the extra signings and trades that they need to if they were actually serious about making the team a division favorite or wild card favorite. They just throw a bone every offseason to the fanbase to string them along when they are just interested in creating the illusion of being a contender. Hitting lighting in a bottle once every 15 years can't be relied upon to win World Series. Sure, they won it that one time. And how many career years did it take to get them there? 75% of the roster? The Sox will probably never win another World Series or even get another World Series appearance this century employing that same approach to roster construction. If they commit to a calculated approach to stockpiling young players and getting the best minor league talent evaluators they can build a real chance to contend for a decade rather than a year or two every decade.

Edited by soxforlife05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contending for 3-5 years would be a minor miracle.

 

So let's worry about "half a decade" or merely getting back to the playoffs before the Marlins, Padres or Mariners.

 

Two of those teams (Miami/Seattle) probably have better opportunities to make it (to the playoffs) than we currently do. It's only SD that is totally screwed, although they'll get some nice pieces back for Drew Pomeranz should they choose to trade him this July.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 07:18 AM)
Contending for 3-5 years would be a minor miracle.

 

So let's worry about "half a decade" or merely getting back to the playoffs before the Marlins, Padres or Mariners.

 

Two of those teams (Miami/Seattle) probably have better opportunities to make it (to the playoffs) than we currently do. It's only SD that is totally screwed, although they'll get some nice pieces back for Drew Pomeranz should they choose to trade him this July.

 

And Kemp too who is having a nice year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 05:42 PM)
You just had a couple of mods in this very same sequence of posts say the organization had clearly given up on him.

 

It's not just me. It's what the White Sox ALWAYS do. The same thing happened with Daniel Hudson after 3 starts. Micah Johnson got about 3 weeks. Carlos Sanchez got about half a season as well, despite being only 22 or 23. They give up on players too quickly or they play them 1-2 seasons too long when they can't believe they were so wrong in their talent evaluation (Beckham, Viciedo, Flowers, Avi Garcia). Somewhere in there is a middle ground that they can't seem to find, a sweet spot, where patience has to be met with results.

 

Marcus Semien had 300 career at-bats with the White Sox. That's essentially half a season. And then they decided he wasn't going to make it. So what's the point of not trading him at that point? They weren't willing to play him everyday, even though that's exactly what rebuilding teams do. That's exactly what Billy Beane did (see below).

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/188565220/as...lays-every-day/

 

But thanks for playing, Dick "Stalker" Allen

 

 

See I disagree with this perspective. I don't think the Sox set out to actively trade the guys you mention nor do I think they gave up on the process after too short of a sample size. I think they USED the young guys to get what they wanted at that time--then got STUCK with the guys no one wanted! (Beckham, Viciedo etc). I could be wrong, but I am assuming that there are not many teams calling Hahn trying to get Carlos Sanchez nor is Rick Hahn actively shopping Sanchez as a centerpiece of a trade because he hasn't panned out. But if Hahn was looking for a Jay Bruce type player, the Reds might think to include Sanchez-- a young, cheap player with MLB experience--especially with an aging 2nd basemen on their MLB roster.

 

Same goes for Shark. They weren't looking to trade Semien, they were looking to acquire Shark because they thought he was a top of the rotation RHP that could compliment who we have. It was a GREAT thought and one worth overpaying a little on the prospect side to get done. Semien had showed something to everyone--including the Sox. We didn't MISS the boat on him, we leveraged him. Now...that didn't pan out the way we had hoped because Shark bombed here, but I bet you a dollar, Hahn would make that trade again because the logic was sound behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:21 PM)
So if you have read this all, then you read the original post with the much longer explanation that included this, so there really isn't a need to write a post like that stuff wasn't addressed before. If you skipped that post, go back and read it.

 

Still think it needs to be said every time. Just because you said it once for accuracy sake doesn't mean you can leave out the details every time after that. It's misleading. All of a sudden it becomes just Semien (he) instead of a they and a guy who sucked for 1 year with all kinds of hopes he could be extended just becomes a #2 .

 

The argument around here used to be ( Semiens 1st year with Oakland)the Sox gave up nothing Semien blows, he can't field, Bassitt and Phegley are fodder. Now it's a different tune all by the shortsighted who somehow can't grasp the fact that when you give up 15 years of control for 1 year ,prospects have a chance to get better and organizational depth is pretty important .What a shocker .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sox did not "give up on" Marcus Semien. They wanted Samardzija and they traded from depth. It costs talent to get talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (FT35 @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 06:29 AM)
See I disagree with this perspective. I don't think the Sox set out to actively trade the guys you mention nor do I think they gave up on the process after too short of a sample size. I think they USED the young guys to get what they wanted at that time--then got STUCK with the guys no one wanted! (Beckham, Viciedo etc). I could be wrong, but I am assuming that there are not many teams calling Hahn trying to get Carlos Sanchez nor is Rick Hahn actively shopping Sanchez as a centerpiece of a trade because he hasn't panned out. But if Hahn was looking for a Jay Bruce type player, the Reds might think to include Sanchez-- a young, cheap player with MLB experience--especially with an aging 2nd basemen on their MLB roster.

 

Same goes for Shark. They weren't looking to trade Semien, they were looking to acquire Shark because they thought he was a top of the rotation RHP that could compliment who we have. It was a GREAT thought and one worth overpaying a little on the prospect side to get done. Semien had showed something to everyone--including the Sox. We didn't MISS the boat on him, we leveraged him. Now...that didn't pan out the way we had hoped because Shark bombed here, but I bet you a dollar, Hahn would make that trade again because the logic was sound behind it.

 

Or they undervalued Semien and overestimated how easy the transition to the AL Central would be for a two-pitch NL pitcher.

 

Cueto learned the hard way. He almost had a 5 ERA, now he's likely to win the Cy Young the next year. Think he got reminded again last night why he's better off in the NL West than the American League.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 07:46 AM)
The Sox did not "give up on" Marcus Semien. They wanted Samardzija and they traded from depth. It costs talent to get talent.

 

Who were their future 2B and 3B at that time?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 07:50 AM)
Who were their future 2B and 3B at that time?

 

Some combination of Micah Johnson, Carlos Sanchez, Matt Davidson, Trey Michalczewski, and Leury Garcia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×