Jump to content

GreenSox

Members
  • Posts

    7,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GreenSox

Recent Profile Visitors

2,487 profile views

GreenSox's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

668

Reputation

  1. Their history says that they don't have a clue whether he is or isn't. But because has no external affirmation (prospect ranking), they don't want to take the chance that he isn't, and would prefer some decliner that they can wishcast will rebound.
  2. Just awful. Considering salary, Lambert is the highest value player in that deal. I think Moncada has a reasonable chance to bounce back anyway.
  3. We did that on occasion, but always quickly reverted to the "proven veteran" comfort zone. In 2013 we trade Santiago and a Rule 5 guy for Eaton; in 2014, Hahn trades 4 young players for 1 year of that proven veteran top of the rotation starter Samardzija.
  4. I would prefer him to Wong, too, but you can't give up serious prospects for either of these two. Trading serious prospects for mediocre older players is the Hahn way, but it's the losing way.
  5. Fine, I guess, if the price is basically nothing. Kepler's career OBP is a miserable .317. He's not cheap either, for a guy who can't hit. This just seems lazy; so often, they focus on players that they are familiar with (Cubs, division players) instead of doing real scouting.
  6. Providing the Brewers a decent piece for Kolten Wong would make it an even worse move.
  7. Then trade Graveman for them. If you go by WAR, Graveman had a higher WAR than Gonzalez and Winker combined last year (quite the feat, as WAR generally disfavors relievers). You just can't trade a good player, Hendriks, for 2 mediocre/bad players.
  8. I don't think Lux' 3 WAR is anywhere close to legit. He doesn't hit for power, his D is okay, not great, and his OBP is good, not great. He's kind of what we would could have reasonably expected out of Madrigal. Sosa or Gonzales should be able to deliver something close to that. Sox really need outfielders.
  9. They've got a few Mendicks on the 40 man; and even though it's a sunk cost, the aren't dumping Leury.
  10. By org. depth, I mean lower minor leagues. Sox have a lot of infielders in the upper minors; just adding more doesn't help. But, as I suggested, if there's a pitcher or an OF, then that's a different story.
  11. Why didn't the Sox clear all of the riff-raff off of the 40 man roster; it would maximize flexibility to take advantage of opportunities that may arise.
  12. Dealing with the Rays' Rule 5 guys won't help organizational depth. If they could get a major league pitcher or OF out of it (worthy of the non-Rule 5 prospect they will have to send in return), then fine. That would require the Sox org. actually having knowledge of the Rays' system, which is a dubious assumption. The Sox certainly don't have a Rule 5 crunch. There are at least 5 guys on there who you would never keep if it meant exposing a real prospect, including a couple that probably shouldn't be on there at all regardless of the circumstances. There are also 9 infielders on the roster; 11 if you include Sheets and Vaughn. There are also 6 only OFs, only 2 of which can actually play OF (Engel and Robert); Eloy is a DH, Sheets and Vaughn are infielders and the 6th is an org. guy.
  13. Yea I can understand making a trade, but Liriano had an ERA in excess of 5 and a WHIP >1.4 that season (and similar numbers the season prior). But the Sox do that. Shields wasn't having a good season, was 34 and had been a hard-used pitcher for many seasons. Sox FO was unphased. And both were terrible with the Sox.
×
×
  • Create New...